Failures of Austrian GMO Study
Experts are picking up scientific errors in a GMO corn safety study publicised recently by the Austrian government. Austrian investigators are being strangely silent about a disturbingly low survival rate of mouse pups in their laboratories. See the links above to GMO Pundit blog for details.
Truth about Trade & Technology board member Bill Horan wrote an editorial on the development of biotech cacao. While the exact nature of the biotech trait being researched is not known, Horan notes that the research will lead to lower cacao prices and will help farmers in Africa produce more.
C.S. Prakash
Sweet Motivation
Truth about Trade & Technology
08 August 2008
On his fourth voyage across the ocean, Columbus captured a large trading canoe off the coast of what is now Honduras. Among its contents were beans from cacao trees. The explorer seems not to have understood their true significance. He had stumbled upon the key ingredient to chocolate.
A couple of generations would pass before Europeans developed a taste for what was already considered a delicacy among the indigenous people of Central and South America. Today, of course, chocolate has gone global--it’s possibly the most popular flavor in the world.
Chocolate makers would like to keep it that way: Mars, the candy company, recently decided to invest $10 million to unravel the genome of the cacao tree. The motivation behind the five-year project is to develop a hardier crop, using the latest tools of biotechnology.
Charlie Bauer, a sugar beet farmer in Michigan, wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in response to an article urging readers to boycott companies using GM sugar. Bauer writes that he supports biotech sugar beets because it benefits not only the farmer, but the consumer as well. He states that in addition to allowing the farmer to plow less and use fewer pesticides, the consumer benefits from this as well, with less exhaust emissions and fewer pesticides in the environment.
C.S. Prakash
Letter about sugar was misleading
Hillsdale Daily News
Aug 08, 2008
I am responding to the misleading and inaccurate statements in the Aug. 2 letter to the editor “Don’t support companies that use genetically engineered sugar.”
As a Michigan sugarbeet grower, I am particularly supportive of genetically enhanced Roundup Ready sugarbeets because in addition to addressing one of the most significant challenges growers face – weed control – they lessen impacts on the environment (which is a benefit to consumers), while producing pure and natural sugar.
The bottom line is that the sugar is the same, no matter its original plant source. Scientific analyses showed that sugar from Roundup Ready sugarbeets is identical at the molecular level to the sugar from the sugarbeets we’ve grown for decades. And regulatory agencies around the world – including Canada, Japan, the EU and Australia – have confirmed that food and feed products derived from Roundup Ready sugarbeets are the same as those derived from other sugarbeets grown in a similar way.
Scientists are working on developing genetically modified bananas and apples. The following article states that consumer-marketed biotech fruits and vegetables have not yet been developed due to negative activist and consumer attitudes. However biotech bananas are currently in development in tropical nationals and could be shipped to the U.S. within in 10 years. What do you think about biotech fruit?
C.S. Prakash
GMO bananas, apples potentially in the pipeline
ACLUSA blog
August 5, 2008
(July 24, 3:37 p.m.) A nonbrowning apple variety and a disease-resistant banana may be the next commodities to test consumer acceptance of biotechnology in fresh produce.
The U.S. has more than 144 million acres of biotech crops under cultivation, but virtually none of that acreage is represented by crops grown for the fresh produce market. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported this year that 80% of the nation’s field corn crop and 92% of soybeans were biotech varieties.
The slow development in biotechnology for fresh produce has been rooted in caution about consumer attitudes. The genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato was unveiled in 1992 but ran aground amid activist resistance, prolonged regulatory reviews and lukewarm market acceptance. . .
“There are very few biotech derived fruits and vegetables on the market and there is not too many being actively developed that are close to being on the market,” said Michael Wach, managing director for science and regulatory affairs for the Food and Agriculture Department of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C.
“I don’t see anybody in the Washington (state) apple industry trying to market a genetically modified apple at this point in time for fear of getting clobbered by the activists,” said economist Desmond O’Rourke, president of Belrose Inc., Pullman, Wash . . .
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas have genetically engineered a carrot to provide more calcium. During trials, researchers found that participants absorbed 41 percent more calcium from the genetically modified carrots than from the natural variety.
C.S. Prakash
Scientists Genetically Engineer "Super Carrot" Rich in Calcium
NaturalNews.com
August 1, 2008
(NaturalNews) Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas have genetically engineered a carrot to provide more calcium, according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In the past, most genetically engineered products have been marketed to farmers, claiming to provide benefits such as herbicide resistance. The "super carrot," however is part of a new trend toward products that claim to provide a direct benefit to consumers. Other researchers are working to modify potatoes to absorb less oil during frying, and to boost the cancer-fighting-chemical content of broccoli.
While carrots contain naturally occurring calcium, the mineral is poorly absorbed by the human body. In the modified carrots, a gene has been changed to allow calcium to move more freely across the carrot's cell membranes.
To test the carrot, researchers fed both normal and genetically modified carrots to 15 women and 15 men between the ages of 21 and 29, then conducted urine tests to determine calcium absorption. The researchers found that participants absorbed 41 percent more calcium from the genetically modified carrot than from the natural variety.
That amounts to a calcium content of between 27 and 29 milligrams per 100 grams (four ounces) of modified carrots.
An Indian newspaper just published an article quoting a fellow biotech expert Bruce M. Chassy on how genetic engineering can help solve the world food crisis. Chassy addresses the issue of a potential food crisis and the affect GM crops could have. He also defends the safety of genetically engineered foods. Read more below.
C.S. Prakash
Genetic engineering can help solve food crisis: US expert
Thaindian News
July 30, 2008
Kolkata, July 30 (IANS) Over 850 million people across the world will not be able to get a square meal by 2025 due to food shortage, but it can be tackled, at least partially, through genetic engineering, says American agricultural expert Bruce M. Chassy. The assistant dean (office of research) of the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at Illinois said: “By 2025, there will be a shortage of 400 billion tonnes of cereal grains that make up our staple diet.”
Speaking to IANS here, Chassy said: “Biotechnology, more precisely genetic engineering, can be a part of the solution, if not a complete answer, to this problem.
“Simultaneously we can produce biofuels to produce energy sustainably. But the drawback is that it can drive food prices” upwards.
Chassy does not think using genetically engineered seeds is at all complex for farmers. “Genetic farming is the easiest way to cultivate crops. All that farmers have to do is to plant the seeds and water them regularly. The genetically modified seeds are insect resistant, so there is no need to use huge amounts of pesticides.”
But is the method suited for developing countries like India since the genetically modified seeds are more expensive than ordinary ones?
A well respected professor in Wales is speaking out in favor of biotechnology. Professor Wynne Jones of Harper Adams University College spoke to attendees of the Royal Welsh Show recently, warning them if farmers did not embrace GM technology they would not be able to compete with the rest of the world. Read more about what he said below.
C.S. Prakash
'Embrace GM or Be Left Behind' ; Don't Be Prejudiced Against Technology, Says Professor
Red Orbit
July 22, 2008
WALES was urged yesterday to put aside its "prejudice" against genetically modified food as world food and fuel prices increase.
A respected academic warned at the Royal Welsh Show that farmers would be disadvantaged if Wales did not embrace GM technology.
But opponents claimed GM crops would not necessarily be cheaper or address farming's main challenge - reducing energy consumption.
Professor Wynne Jones, of Harper Adams University College, Shropshire, praised the Welsh Assembly Government for investing in the new Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth.
He also acknowledged widespread consumer resistance in Europe to GM food, but said the public needed to be educated about the technology.
"We must show leadership, and we must encourage young people to take up science," he said. "It's up to us as educationalists and scientists to inform the public and have a debate based on fact and not heated emotions.
Red Orbit posted the following article today on the need for more farmers to plant biotech crops. In addition to touting its benefits, the article discusses successes. It’s definitely worth the read.
C.S. Prakash
Science Supersizes Crops
Red Orbit
July 21, 2008
A new "supercorn" with eight genetic modifications that make it even more highly resistant to insects and weed killers than earlier versions is just one of the agricultural developments Americans will see over the next several years as scientific advances enable technicians to customize crop plants with stacks of genes, biotechnology expert Clive James said.
Mr. James stressed the need for genetically modified crops to help farmers grow more food on fewer acres as the world is running out of land and water while the population is expected to climb to 9 billion by 2015.
"In the next 50 years, the global population will consume twice as much food as the global population has consumed since the beginning of agriculture 10,000 years ago," Mr. James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, told reporters and editors Wednesday at The Washington Times. "You have a choice: You can think of it as a problem, or we think of it as an opportunity."
Twelve million farmers in 23 countries are now using crops that have been enhanced with additional genes to achieve benefits such as resistance to pests and viruses, according to 2007 data from ISAAA, a nonprofit focused on spreading biotechnology to alleviate hunger and poverty in developing countries. Meanwhile, biotech crop area grew last year by 12 percent to about 285 million acres.
The U.S. is the world's largest user of biotech crops, with about 80 percent of processed food including genetically modified soybeans or corn, Mr. James said. Ten other industrialized nations and 12 developing countries use the technology, which was commercialized in 1996.
DuPont just received regulatory approval on a soybean variety that is resistant to weed killers, the company's first proprietary genetically modified crop. DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred business unit plans to launch demonstration plots next year of soybeans with Optimum GAT, a genetically engineered trait that helps crops resist several types of herbicides. DuPont hopes to release the crop commercially by 2011.
C.S. Prakash
DuPont gains approval for modified soybeans
Delaware Online
July 18, 2008
DuPont Co. has received U.S. regulatory approval for soybeans that resist weed killers, an important step toward launching the company's first proprietary genetically modified crops.
DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred business unit plans to launch demonstration plots next year of soybeans with Optimum GAT, a genetically engineered trait that helps crops resist several types of herbicides.
The technology is a crucial part of DuPont's strategy for capturing a greater share of the North American market for corn and soybean seeds, as well as ending hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments to its top competitor in agriculture.
Genetically engineered seeds incorporate genes from other organisms to impart a certain trait, like herbicide or insect resistance, to crops.
DuPont licenses a yield-enhancing trait and a herbicide-resistance trait called Roundup Ready from St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. In the next eight years, the company expects to pay about $725 million to Monsanto for Roundup Ready corn alone, according to a financial filing. Neither DuPont nor Monsanto would disclose royalty payments for the other traits.
I found the following article in the Prairie Star today. Europeans are starting to accept the idea of genetically modified foods. The article addresses the need for transgenic wheat and the current development of a drought-tolerant version in Australia.
C.S. Prakash
Tide could now be turning for transgenic wheat
The Prairie Star
July 18, 2008
With world wheat stocks at historic lows, some longtime opponents of transgenic (often called genetically modified organisms) are coming to the realization that, without increased adaptation of transgenics, the world's farmers cannot produce enough safe, wholesome food to feed its people.
According to a non-profit, farmer-founded interest group called Growers for Biotechnology, recent comments by European governments are an indication that public opinion is turning the corner.
A news article posted on the Web site, www.growersforbiotechnology.org, reports that in late June, Great Britain's Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, addressed the world's food price crisis with this comment: “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food price crisis.
It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves.
The debate is already under way. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue.”
Europe's resistance to transgenic crops has been one of the main obstacles to more rapid adoption of the technology around the world.
Developing African nations, even those with mass starvation, have rejected transgenics out of fear that they might lose the opportunity to sell any surplus crops to Europe. Now, with a global food shortage exacerbating hunger around the world, the United Kingdom is beginning to see that Europe's resistance cannot be sustained.
South Africa’s Agricultural Research Council (ARC) has developed a new potato variety resistant to the potato tuber moth, a major pest causing millions worth of harvest loss in major crops. According to the article, the crop is currently awaiting approval from the government. Once approved, the crop will move to farmer participatory trials under unconfined conditions and steps will be taken to prepare for commercial release. Sounds promising
C.S. Prakash
South Africa develops new GM potato variety
Tootooeub51 blog
July 15, 2008
South Africa’s Agricultural Research Council (ARC) has developed anew potato variety resistant to the potato tuber moth, a majorpests causing millions worth of harvest loss in major solanaceouscrops.
The transgenic potato SpuntaG2, developed through the support ofthe United States Agency for International development (USAID), nowawaits safety assessment and general release approval from thenational authorities.
The approval will enable the ARC to initiate farmer participatorytrials under unconfined conditions and develop a certification andlabeling system to prepare for commercial release of improvedpotato varieties.
SpuntaG2 is the first publicly-funded genetically modified crop toenter the safety approval process in South Africa.
The new variety performed well in field trials.
Environmental studies further showed that the GM crop controls thepotato tuber moth without affecting other organisms.
I ran across the following Houston Chronicle interview with Norman Borlaug on the topic of rising food prices. The author asks Borlaug about rising food costs, high yield crops and the fear of genetically modified foods. Read on and let me know what you think.
C.S. Prakash
No easy solutions to food price rise
Houston Chronicle
July 13, 2008
Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work in developing more productive strains of wheat and working to ensure their adoption around the world. During a recent phone interview with science writer Eric Berger, the 94-year-old distinguished professor at Texas A&M University said there are no simple solutions to the current crunch in food prices.
Q: Are you surprised at the price increases in wheat, corn, rice and other basic foodstuffs, some of which have tripled in just a few years?
A: I'm not surprised. The energy problem and the food problem are tangled up together. Many of the things that go into our food production system, like fuel for tractors and machines, and for fertilizer, have energy costs. Then there's the transport system for delivering goods. In addition, there may be speculation also. It's hard to isolate all of these factors. One change in government policy won't rectify all of these interacting complications.
Q: Do you worry about food riots around the world if prices continue to rise?
A: This is going on already in a few of the hardest pressed countries. Hunger is a pretty great force, especially if a country has seen things getting better and now it's going in another direction. People don't want to lose this progress, so they react in strikes and civic disorders of various kinds.
Q: Give me an example of a country that's made progress in its food supply.
A: India became self-sufficient in basic foods in the middle 1980s. Their production of basic cereal grains went from less than 11 million tons in 1965 to 75 million tons at the turn of the century. Today, they're eating more meat than they ever ate before. And meat requires more grain to feed animals. Now, with the increased price of food, some people are going to be pushed back into a shortage of food.
Reuters just reported that China’s cabinet approved a “huge” budget for research of genetically modified crops. Chinese scientists said the program includes a large increase for GMO research, and a big portion to develop safety measures for GMO crops until the year 2020.
C.S. Prakash
China approves big budget for GMO amid food worries
Reuters
July 10, 2008
BEIJING (Reuters) - China's cabinet has approved a huge budget for research of genetically modified crops amid growing concerns over food security, a move scientists say may speed up commercial production of GMO rice or corn.
The State Council, or cabinet, at a meeting chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao, gave the green light on Wednesday to a program aimed at promoting indigenous genetically modified crops (GMO), Xinhua news agency said.
Although the Xinhua report gave few details of the program, Chinese scientists said it included a large increase for GMO research, including a big portion to develop safety measures for GMO crops until the year 2020.
"There is significant growth in budget at between 4 to 5 billion Yuan ($584- 730 million) in the coming years," Lu Barong, a professor with Fusan University and also a member of the country's biosafety committee with the agriculture ministry, told Reuters.
"Particularly a large budget was allocated on GMO safety research," said Lu.
Xinhua said the program aims to obtain genes with great potential commercial value whose intellectual property rights belong to China, and to develop high-quality, high-yield and pest-resistant genetically modified new species.
The Grand Island Independent reported on the growth of biotech crops in the US. The article boosts that 80 percent of the nation’s corn crop is of the biotechnology varieties and 92 percent of the nation’s soybean crop has biotech traits. Amazingly, South Dakota farmers currently plant 95 percent of their soybean crops with biotech traits.
C.S. Prakash
Genetically engineered crops continue to grow in Nebraska
The Grand Island Independent
July 10, 2008
GRAND ISLAND — While genetically engineered crops remain a source of controversy worldwide, Nebraska and U.S. farmers have aggressively adapted to these new crop varieties since 1996, according to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
According to a recent USDA acreage report, 80 percent of the nation's corn crop is of biotechnology varieties and 92 percent of the nation's soybean crop is of biotech varieties.
The number of biotech corn acres planted this year was up from 73 percent last year, and biotech soybean acres are up from 91 percent from last year.
In Nebraska, farmers planted 9 million acres for all purposes in 2008, down 4 percent from last year but still the second largest planted area since 1936. Biotechnology varieties accounted for 86 percent of the planted acreage, up from 79 percent last year.
State soybean producers planted 4.75 million acres, up 25 percent from the previous year. Biotechnology varieties resistant to herbicides accounted for 97 percent of the planted acreage, up from 96 percent last year.
Nationwide, Nebraska is tied with South Dakota and Mississippi in the percentage of soybean acres planted to biotech varieties. Nebraska was fifth in corn biotech varieties behind South Dakota, 95 percent; Kansas, 90 percent; North Dakota, 89 percent; and Minnesota, 88 percent.
In Nebraska, 27 percent of the corn acres were planted to BT varieties that kill insects, down from 31 percent in 2007. Herbicide-resistant biotech varieties of corn planted in Nebraska were up from 23 percent last year to 24 percent this year. Stack gene varieties, which contain insecticide and herbicide traits, were up from 25 percent last year to 35 percent this year.
Monsanto’s Colin Merritt recently gave a speech at a seminar organized by McDonalds and the Guild of Agricultural Journalists in the United Kingdom. The following article quotes Merritt as saying that people in Europe “would be foolish to dismiss the contribution biotech could make,” especially with all of the new technology and advancements in the field. Read more about his speech below.
C.S. Prakash
Innovation will drive GM crops, says Monsanto boss
Press and Journal
July 4, 2008
New innovations will speed up the acceptance of genetically modified crops to a doubting European audience, one of the bosses of biotech giant Monsanto told a seminar at the show.
Colin Merritt said with the rest of the world adopting GM there was growing pressure on Europe to speed up its approvals process and change its stance on what he viewed as a now proven – and safe – technology.
He told the seminar, organised by McDonalds and the Guild of Agricultural Journalists, that GM and molecular plant genetics were part of the solution to ensuring food security.
People would be foolish to dismiss the contribution biotech could make, part- icularly with breeders concentrating on producing new crops that used less water and nitrogen fertilisers and which could deliver health benefits by adding friendly fatty acids such as omega 3 into them.
Mr Merritt believed breeders could over the next 15-20 years more than double the current yields of a range of staple crops such as soya, oilseeds, cotton and soya.
GMO Compass posted news from the US Department of Agriculture announcing biotech crops were cultivated on nearly 60 million hectares in 2008, an increase of 10 percent from last year. The article claims increases in biotech maize and soybeans and a slight decrease in biotech cotton. The article also states that biotech soybeans are used on more than 95 percent of farms in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota and Nebraska.
C.S. Prakash
USA 2008: GM cultivation almost at 60 million hectares
GMO Compass
July 1, 2008
For farmers in the USA, genetically modified (GM) crops are a matter of course. In 2008, GM crops were cultivated on almost 60 million hectares. This represents a growth of ten per cent in comparison to 2007, as can be read in the cultivation statistics published on 30 June by the US-American Department of Agriculture.
A significant expansion of GM lines has been observed for maize. The cultivation of GM types increased by seven percentage points and now represents 80 percent of all planted maize. Almost one half of GM maize used in 2008 displays combined resistance to insects and herbicides (due to the presence of ‘stacked genes’). However, the field surface occupied by GM maize has remained almost unchanged (with a slight rise from 27.4 to 27.7 million hectares) as a result of a general reduction in maize area.
In the case of soybean, GM varieties have attained near-exclusivity. Having risen by one percentage point, such soybeans now comprise 92 per cent of total soybean cultivation. This figure rises to more than 95 per cent in the states of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota and Nebraska. Since significantly greater quantities of soybean were planted in comparison to the previous year, the cultivated field area of GM soybean has risen from 23.6 to 27.7 million hectares.
GM cotton has fallen slightly from 87 to 86 per cent. The total field area for cotton in the USA has attained its lowest acreage since 1983 and now occupies only 3.7 million hectares. Consequently, the field area for GM cotton has been reduced to 3.2 million hectares (2007: 3.9 million hectares).
The UK newspaper The Independent just published an article on a new study released by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission's scientific body, on the impact of genetically modified crops in Europe. Scientists surveyed more than 400 Spanish farmers who grew Bt maize and found that they produced higher yields and earned up to €122 more per hectare than conventional maize farmers. Read the article below and by following the link.
C.S. Prakash
Farmers praise GM crops in EU study
The Independent
June 30, 2008
European farmers who grow genetically modified crops enjoy higher yields and revenues than conventional growers, according to a new study.
Scientists from the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission's scientific body, surveyed more than 400 Spanish farmers who grew Bt maize – the only GM crop allowed for cultivation in the EU. They found they produced higher yields and earned up to €122 more per hectare (£50 per acre) than conventional maize farmers.
It is the first time scientists have looked into the impact of GM in Europe, said Dr Emilio Rodriguez Cerezo, who led the research. "There are definite economic advantages for farmers for the reason that their crops are not destroyed by pests," he said.
The European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, wants to remove regulatory obstacles to the controversial technology, arguing that GM crops could counter soaring food prices. However, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who takes over the EU presidency tomorrow, will be calling for more controls on GM organisms. Environ-mental groups accuse the GM industry of exploiting the global food crisis to win approval for its products.
Austria has lifted its ban on importing and processing genetically modified corn. According to the following Associated Press article they are finally complying with the World Trade Organization to lift the ban.
C.S. Prakash
EU says Austria has lifted a ban on importing, processing genetically modified corn
Associated Press
June 24, 2008
GENEVA: Austria has lifted a ban on importing and processing genetically modified corn as part of the European Union's efforts to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling on biotech foods, the EU said Tuesday.
At a regular meeting of the organization, the 27-nation EU informed trading partners that it was cooperating in good faith with Argentina, Canada and the United States, which have successfully pressed their case at the WTO.
The EU said it was taking steps to comply with a 2006 ruling that European countries illegally hindered the sale of genetically modified foods and cited the decision of the Austrian government, long one of Europe's most resistant, to allow genetically modified maize to be imported and processed.
The bloc said the ban was lifted on May 27.
Robert Prochazka at the Austrian mission in Geneva confirmed that his country implemented an EU decision on corn last month. It doesn't allow for the genetically modified crop to be planted in Austria, he said.
I found the following article by Dennis Avery today. Title “Biotech Wheat to Ease World Food Shortage,” the article addresses the food shortage issues that will likely affect the world in the coming decades and the role biotech wheat could play if developed.
C.S. Prakash
Biotech Wheat to Ease World Food Shortage
News By Us
June 23, 2008
In the midst of the worst global grain shortage in decades, two lines of Australian biotech wheat have out-yielded current wheats by 20 percent - even under drought stress.
“Around the world, 35–50 percent of the wheat-growing areas are under drought risk. The number of drought-affected wheat growing areas is likely to increase with the effects of climate change” John Brumby, of Victoria, Australia told his audience. “These initial results are very promising, and suggest that these genetically modified wheat lines may be part of the solution to help farmers maintain and improve their crop yields in a changing global environment.”
Australia is the world’s driest continent and Victoria’s wheat crop was significantly reduced by drought in 2006/2007. U.S. wheat stocks were cut to an 11-year low this winter by drought that spread last year from Texas through bone-dry Missouri and nearly to the Canadian border.
Researchers are also working on heat-tolerant wheat varieties, examining wild relatives of the wheat plant for DNA that would help wheat to tolerate higher temperatures for longer periods without sacrificing yield. Biotechnology would permit such DNA to be inserted into wheat varieties that already have high yields and good baking characteristics.
Due largely to opposition from environmental activists, no biotech wheats are currently being grown in the world. Monsanto shelved its herbicide-tolerant wheat, which could have allowed higher yields due to better weed control. Syngenta has slowed its work on disease-resistant biotech wheat.
The UK newspaper The Independent is reporting the European Union is re-investigating the benefits of GM crops. The EU launched a study into whether a large-scale expansion of genetically modified crops would curb soaring global food prices. Good to see that Europe is taking another look at GM crops!
C.S. Prakash
Europe warms to GM crops as possible solution to food crisis
The Independent
June 21, 2008
The European Union has launched a study into whether a large-scale expansion of genetically modified crops would curb soaring global food prices.
Gordon Brown backed the move after the European Commission said GM crops could "play an important role in mitigating the effects of the food crisis". Jose Manuel Barroso, the Commission president, warned that the EU's current obstacles to GM products could result in higher food prices in Europe than the rest of the world. EU leaders endorsed the plans to review the complex system of approving GM licences, which is split between the EU and national governments. It could be streamlined to make the approval process easier.
Mr Brown told a press conference in Brussels that decisions on the issue should be driven by science. He said: "In the end, the attitude to GM crops and GM food taken by consumers in our country and in any country is going to depend on the scientific and medical advice. That is what we are looking for from the work of this review group. Scientific advice is going to be the key to the future. It is very important that we see the results of that review before we come to firm conclusions."
The push for an expansion of GM crops comes as British ministers consider plans to relax the Government's controls over their cultivation, as The Independent revealed on Thursday.
In a report to EU leaders, Mr Barroso said the food price rises had added "a new dimension" to the public debate on GM crops. He admitted people were worried about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and farming, but he said the EU was probably one of the largest importers of GMOs as its livestock industry was highly dependent on imported plant proteins.
There continues to be buzz about UK Environment Minister Phil Woolas’ push to start talking about GM crops in the United Kingdom. According to this article the National Farmers Union of the UK is supporting Woolas, saying that GM crops have the potential to help feed the world.
C.S. Prakash
NFU welcomes moves for debate on GM crops role
Newbusiness.co.uk
June 20, 2008
THE National Farmers Union has welcomed moves by the Government to start a debate about a greater role for GM crops. As world food prices continue to rise, Environment Minister Phil Woolas said yesterday that he wants a debate on the benefits of GM crops in offering greater yields, particularly in the developing world.
A spokesman for the NFU said: “We are pleased the Defra minister is finally talking about GM crops in an open, pragmatic and science-based way.
“We sincerely hope this indicates a real change in Government thinking and a move away from the highly politicised and emotive way this issue has been dealt with during the last decade.
“The reality is that GM technology is not new and it has been applied to commercial agriculture around the world for more than 12 years.
“In the context of increasing food prices as well as fuel, we are pleased that the benefits of reduced inputs and increased yields by improving crops using GM technology are finally being recognised as a benefit for both consumers and the environment.”
This week, Mr Woolas said: “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food price crisis.
England’s the Independent is speaking out against Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth’s criticism of Phil Woolas’ announcement of support for genetically modified crops. The author of the article notes that while GM crops won’t “solve the global food shortage” on its own, “GM technology certainly has the potential to play an important part down the line in bringing more land under cultivation in the developing world and Africa.”
C.S. Prakash
Leading article: There is no reason for a blanket ban on GM crops
The Independent
June 20, 2008
Some plants that look dead can suddenly spring back to life again. Genetically modified crops seem to have accomplished such a trick. After a prolonged period of quiet, GM is back on the political agenda. The environment minister, Phil Woolas, told this newspaper yesterday, after talks with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, that these crops might help alleviate the present global food price crisis.
Gordon Brown reiterated this message yesterday at a meeting of European Union leaders in Brussels. After years of bowing to public hostility to GM crops, the Government seems ready to play a more active role in promoting them.
Longstanding opponents of GM, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, have reacted with hostility. While these environmental groups do a valuable service in influencing many aspects of public policy, this newspaper believes they are misguided in their blanket rejection of GM.
Some of humankind's most significant advances throughout history have been a result of agricultural innovation, from irrigation in ancient Mesopotamia, to Jethro Tull's seed drill. The genetic modification of crops can be part of this noble tradition. Drought and salt-resistant strains of crops have the potential to increase yields considerably and to bring more land under cultivation.
It is, of course, simplistic to argue that GM alone can solve the global food shortage. The present crisis is too complex for any quick-fix solution. And there are, at present, no GM crops with these particular capabilities on the market. But GM technology certainly has the potential to play an important part down the line in bringing more land under cultivation in the developing world and Africa.
It looks like efforts to create drought-tolerant crops are beginning to ramp up. According to the following Reuters article biotech industry leaders, including DuPont, Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science, were in San Diego last week at the BIO International Conference discussing the development of new disease-resistant and drought-tolerant crops. Read more about it below.
C.S. Prakash
Biotech crops seen helping to feed hungry world
Reuters
June 19, 2008
SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - Biotechnology in agricultural will be key to feeding a growing world population and overcoming climate challenges like crop-killing droughts, according to a group of leading industry players.
"It is critical we keep moving forward," said Thomas West, a director of biotechnology affairs at DuPont, interviewed on the sidelines of a biotechnology conference in San Diego. "We have to yield and produce our way out of this."
DuPont believes it can increase corn and soybean yields by 40 percent over the next decade. Corn seeds that now average about 150 bushels per acre could be at well over 200 bushels an acre, for example, DuPont officials said.
Crop shortages this year have sparked riots in some countries and steep price hikes in markets around the globe, and questions about how to address those issues were the subject of several meetings at the BIO International Convention being held this week.
Despite persistent reluctance in many nations and from some consumer and environmental groups, genetically modified crops, -- and the fortunes of the companies that make them -- have been on the rise. Growing food and biofuel demands have been helping push growth.
The UK’s Environmental minister Phil Woolas’ is coming out in support of GM crops. Woolas recently met with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council to discuss ways in which genetically modified crops could be grown in Britain on a wider scale as a means of dealing with the global food crisis. Woolas told the Independent, “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food-price crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves." Read more of Woolas’ comments below.
C.S. Prakash
Government takes fresh look at GM crops
The Guardian
June 19, 2008
Genetically modified crops could be grown in Britain on a wider scale as a means of dealing with the global food crisis, it was revealed today.
Phil Woolas, the environment minister, last night held preliminary talks with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, an umbrella group formed in 2000 to promote the role of biotechnology in agriculture.
"There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food-price crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves," Woolas told the Independent.
"The debate is already under way. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue."
He told the newspaper that the "very robust" procedures for ensuring the safety of experiments would continue, with scientists looking at each application on its merits.
Gordon Brown is said to be increasingly sympathetic to taking a fresh look at the issue. The government decided in 2004 after a heated public debate that there was no scientific case for a blanket ban on GM crops. But the global food crisis is thought to have persuaded him that the time was right to reconsider the role of GM crops.
Dow AgroSciences LLC and Martek Biosciences Corporation say they will develop and commercialize a canola seed that produces omega-3 fatty acid, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). DHA has been touted as a fatty acid that supports brain, eye and heart health. Read more about this below.
C.S. Prakash
Biotech canola could offer even healthier oil
The Farm and Ranch Guide
June 19, 2008
A new generation of healthy canola oils could soon be available to consumers.
Dow AgroSciences LLC and Martek Biosciences Corporation have announc-ed they will develop and commercialize a canola seed that produces omega-3 fatty acid, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid).
The two companies hope to eventually produce DHA-rich canola oil for people to eat.
DHA omega-3 is a healthy long-chain fatty acid that is used by the brain and eyes. It supports brain, eye and cardiovascular health.
Science is finding that people of all ages, from babies through aging adults, benefit from DHA omega-3 in their diets. Clinical studies are underway to evaluate the role of DHA in decreasing the prevalence of certain neurological disorders.
Despite its importance, Americans consume very little DHA omega-3.
Today, DHA is primarily sourced from algal fermentation and fish oil.
While canola and flax naturally contain omega-3 fatty acids, they do not contain DHA omega-3, which is found in fish.
The New York Times published an article on June 5th on Monsanto’s push to boost global food production, now Newsweek is promoting Monsanto’s efforts as well. According to the article, the biotechnology company plans to funnel millions of dollars into research on wheat and rice, in addition to it’s efforts to double yields of corn and soy by 2030.Well done Monsanto!
C.S. Prakash
Monsanto on the Menu
Business Week
June 10, 2008
It's betting the food crisis will create new markets for genetically modified products.
Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically modified seeds, has spent years trying to shed its image as a purveyor of Frankenfood. The political battles over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the 1990s left the company bruised, profitless, and with scaled-back ambitions on the consumer-food front. Out were promises of GMO wheat, rice, and tomatoes. In was a focus on corn, soy, and cotton—big-volume crops destined for industrial uses such as animal feed, ethanol, and textiles. The gambit worked. Since 2003, Monsanto (MON) has transformed itself from a money-losing pariah into a $5 billion agribusiness titan with 20% profit margins and a stock price that is up 1,200%.
Flush with success, Monsanto this month has launched a new push to feed the world. Amid food shortages and rampant inflation, the St. Louis company now wants to reassert its position in the global food chain. On June 5, during a U.N. food summit in Rome, Monsanto announced ambitious goals to boost global food production, funneling millions into public research on wheat and rice—areas the company had abandoned in recent years—while pledging to double yields on corn and soy by 2030. The company says it will also distribute seeds to African farmers royalty-free. "That isn't a feel-good thing," says Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant. "Satisfying the demand curve is a great business opportunity."
Indeed, a number of agribusiness giants see a new opportunity for biotech crops. And they downplay fears of a backlash this time around: "I think the world has moved on," says Grant. Executives at rivals such as Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta (SYT) have also spoken out in recent weeks. Europe's food safety chief, Androulla Vassiliou, has talked about being more flexible while Columbia University Earth Institute Director Jeffrey D. Sachs and World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick have noted that GMOs could fight global hunger. In particular, many point to new lines of drought-tolerant corn, due out in 2012, that have been engineered to use water more efficiently.
The Urban Cowboy blog posted an entry on Martin Taylor’s – current chair of the board of directors for Basel, Switzerland-based Syngenta AG – stop in Guelph, Canada to discuss a solution to the global food crisis, current technology. The author comments on Taylor’s attitude during the meeting with key influencers in Canada, saying that he was more interested in discussing Canadian agriculture and “selling a bag of seed.” I’m glad to see Syngenta getting out there and promoting biotechnology to Canada!
C.S. Prakash
Technology can help address food fright
Urban Cowboy
June 10, 2008
As world leaders were scrambling for answers last week in Rome at a United Nations summit on the global food crisis, agribusiness leader Martin Taylor was quietly stepping to the podium before 40 farm industry leaders and media in Guelph to suggest his solution to the problem — current technology.
On Monday, Taylor, chair of the board of directors for Basel, Switzerland-based Syngenta AG, stopped in Guelph — where the company makes its Canadian headquarters — as part of his first visit to Canada as company chair. The Canadian group, led by president Jay Bradshaw, invited key influencers to meet him, pick his brain and see what the head of one of the world's most influential and globally minded agricultural companies is thinking.
One thing on his mind — which is not unlike other companies — is the bottom line.
Syngenta has a lot to gain if technology takes on an increasing role in addressing food problems. It already has a major stake in the situation, having realized sales of $9.2 billion last year, followed by a 20 per cent increase in the first quarter of 2008.
Syngenta is immersed in technology, through its development of crop protection products and seed technology, including genetically modified seed.
I found this article in Modern Ghana discussing a recent meeting in Nigeria on the need for genetically modified crops in Africa, specifically Bt cowpea. Participants from Australia, the United States and some African countries attended the three-day international conference, which was organized by the Nairobi-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) and the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Currently, AATF is working to develop a new genetically modified cowpea with a Bt gene that would enable farmers in Africa to have access to high quality seed and socially acceptable cowpea varieties with increased resistance to maruca pod borer, an insect that troubles the produce in Africa.
C.S. Prakash
Scientists Advocate GM Food
Modern Ghana
June 6, 2008
AS WORLD leaders met earlier this week in Rome to find solutions to the global food crisis, a number of scientists and other stakeholders also converged on the Nigerian capital, Abuja, to consider the possibility of increasing Bt cowpea production in Africa to feed the continent.
The three-day international conference, organized by the Nairobi-based African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) and the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, attracted participants from Australia, the United States and some African countries.
Speaker after speaker called for effective ways to propagate the message that Bt cowpea, given the necessary attention, could be a major source of food especially protein, to the ever-increasing population of the continent.
Currently, AATF is engaged in a process of developing a new genetically modified cowpea with a Bt gene that would enable smallholder farmers in Africa to have access to high quality seed and socially acceptable cowpea varieties with increased resistance to maruca pod borer, an insect that troubles the produce.
In a presentation on her behalf, Nigeria’s Federal Minister of Science and Technology, Chief (Mrs.) Grace Ekpiwhre, assured the participants that the government of Nigeria, the largest producer and consumer of cowpea, supported every progress being made to develop Bt cowpea.
Monsanto recently announced that they are pledging to develop crops that will hopefully double the yield of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030. The announcement was made at a meeting in Rome where world leaders were discussing rising food prices and growing food shortages. The biotechnology company is also pledging to waive the royalty fees for the development of drought-tolerant corn in Africa.
C.S. Prakash
Monsanto Seeks Big Increase in Crop Yields
New York Times
June 5, 2008
Monsanto, the leader in agricultural biotechnology, pledged Wednesday to develop seeds that would double the yields of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030 and would require 30 percent less water, land and energy to grow.
The announcement, coming as world leaders are meeting in Rome to discuss rising food prices and growing food shortages, appears to be aimed at least in part at winning acceptance of genetically modified crops by showing that they can play a major role in feeding the world.
Much of what is in the commitment are things the company was doing anyway. But Monsanto’s chief executive, Hugh Grant, said in an interview Wednesday that the company wanted to make the goals public “so this isn’t just a bound report on some library shelf.” He said it was only coincidence that the announcement was made at the same time as the meeting in Rome.
Monsanto said it had developed its commitment after consulting farmers, political leaders, academics and advocacy groups as to what needed to be done to increase food production without converting more forests into farmland or increasing pollution.
It is a matter of debate how much genetic engineering, which involves adding bacterial or other foreign genes to the DNA of plants, could contribute to improving output.
The Financial Times recently published an article on the need for a second green revolution. With commodity prices soaring, the need for high yield crops is there, but the agricultural community is meeting more resistance this time around. We need to get these crops developed to feed the ever expanding world population!
C.S. Prakash
The End Of Abundance: Food Panic Brings Calls For A Second ‘Green Revolution’
Truth about Trade & Technology
June 4, 2008
The world stood on the brink of starvation and, warned doomsday forecasts in the 1960s, the battle to feed all of humanity was already lost. Famine was common in some of the most populated countries. Predictions of Malthusian catastrophe made the bestseller lists, with Paul R. Ehrlich writing in The Population Bomb that by the 1970s and 1980s the victims would number in the hundreds of millions.
But human ingenuity saved the day. A massive programme of investment in agricultural research and infrastructure – avidly supported by the US out of a cold-war-fuelled fear that hungry countries could fall into the arms of the Soviet Union – led to an explosion in farm productivity. Nations that never dreamt of being able to feed themselves were transformed into net exporters of food.
Those efforts, led by Norman Borlaug, an American agronomist who was later awarded the Nobel peace prize, resulted in the development of higher-yielding seeds and an exceptional expansion in the use of irrigation, fertilisers and pesticides in developing countries.
By 1968 the jump in farm productivity was so clear – India, for example, harvested a record wheat crop, as did the Philippines for rice – that William Gaud, administrator of the US Agency for International Development, said the world was witnessing the “makings of a new revolution”.
“It is not a violent red revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a white revolution like that of the Shah of Iran,” Gaud said in a speech 40 years ago. “I call it the green revolution,” he added, coining a term that has long survived him.
Yet, like its counterparts elsewhere on the spectrum, the green revolution eventually lost momentum. Today, the world stands on the brink again as agricultural commodity prices surge, triggering food riots in countries from Haiti to Bangladesh. This time, however, efforts to increase supply – and the political backing in Washington and other capitals – appear far weaker. The task of raising productivity is meanwhile rendered more difficult by record oil prices, which make fertiliser more expensive.
According to a new study published by entomologists at Cornell University, genetically modified (GM) plants that use Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) to kill pests won't harm the pests' natural enemies. The study claims the Bt insecticidal proteins are not toxic to a parasite that lives inside the caterpillar of the diamondback moth, a devastating worldwide vegetable pest. Read more about this study below.
C.S. Prakash
New study shows that transgenic plants don't hurt beneficial bugs
Physorg.com
June 3, 2008
Genetically modified (GM) plants that use Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a common soil bacterium, to kill pests won't harm the pests' natural enemies, according to new research by Cornell entomologists.
That is welcome news for ecologists and farmers in the debate over GM plants. Much of the debate surrounding the use of GM crops focuses on their effect on organisms that aren't pests.
The research showed that GM plants expressing Bt insecticidal proteins are not toxic to a parasite that lives inside the caterpillar of the diamondback moth, a devastating worldwide vegetable pest. It was published in the May 27 issue of the online scientific journal PLoS One.
"The conservation of parasites is important for enhancing natural biocontrol that will help suppress pest populations as well as reduce the potential for the pest insects to develop resistance to the Bt," explained Anthony Shelton, Cornell professor of entomology at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, N.Y., who conducted the study with postdoctoral associate Mao Chen. "Our studies make it clear that Bt plants are a win-win situation to control pest insects and to enhance biocontrol and biodiversity."
The Bt bacterium, which is not harmful to humans, has been used for decades as a leaf spray and since 1996, in GM plants, a method that has proven much more effective and is now more widely used. Both uses are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In 2007, Bt corn and cotton plants were grown in 22 countries on 104 million acres, according to Shelton.
"Few studies have examined the effect of Bt plants on parasites of caterpillars, but some of them have reported negative impacts," said Chen, noting that the new research suggests that those negative findings were likely due to testing methods.
The Telegraph of the United Kingdom published an article on the need for GM crops in the UK and Europe. The author cites rising fuel costs, food costs and the fear of a food shortage as reasons why more farmers are beginning to consider GM crops a positive thing. He states that last time GM crops were tested in the UK, GM sugar beets and maize, crops were pulled up and destroyed, if crops are tested again, the UK population may not be so indifferent to such action. Sounds positive to me!
C.S. Prakash
Why we need GM foods
The Telegraph
June 2, 2008
The Government is accused of having lost touch with reality.
No better example exists than agriculture minister Hilary Benn's insistence that domestic food production is unnecessary for food security.
Other countries across the world are protecting their populations from running low; even major food exporters like Argentina are beginning to restrict some exports. American rice rationing is a fact.
World leaders are starting openly to talk about food running out. The sharp commodity price hikes after 10 years of stagnation are causing alarm. China is now seeking to buy farm-land abroad further increasing alarm.
The arguments about genetically modified crops are being resurrected. When the price of a loaf of bread doubles, as it is on the way to doing, the public's pickiness about production methods will weaken.
GM can be seen as crop modification addressing contemporary problems. Take fuel costs and the carbon effects of heavy tractors churning over fields. On a crop of GM sugar-beet or oil seeds weeds are controlled with one 'pass', the tractor using an all-inclusive weed-killer to over-spray the crop which itself remains undamaged. Ordinary sugar-beet varieties require three to four sprayings.
Scientists in France and Switzerland are working to show soil bacteria from Bt maize fields do not cause antibiotic-resistance. This topic has been very controversial in the past, but it appears these scientists may have been able to show that antibiotic-resistant genes don’t transfer from the transgenic plants to bacteria.
C.S. Prakash
Ten years of Bt maize cultivation: Horizontal gene transfer of no significance
GMO Safety
May 30, 2008
Scientists from France and Switzerland have been studying soil bacteria from a field where genetically modified Bt maize has been growing for 10 years. They wanted to find out whether controversial antibiotic-resistance genes can in fact transfer from transgenic plants to bacteria, as is widely feared. They have concluded that transgenic plants play no part in the spread of antibiotic resistances.
Bacteria have special mechanisms which enable them to exchange genetic information directly without sexual reproduction. For this reason it is feared that antibiotic‑resistance genes that are used as marker genes in transgenic plants could be absorbed by pathogenic bacteria and so reduce the effectiveness of important antibiotic drugs. Antibiotics are widely used in human and veterinary medicine and for a long time they were also added to animal food to promote animal growth and performance. This has led to the emergence of bacterial resistances to antibiotics used in medicine. The question is, do genetically modified plants also help spread this kind of antibiotic resistance?
Gene transfer from plant DNA to bacteria is considered to be highly unlikely because a whole series of conditions are required before it can occur at all. As yet, this type of horizontal gene transfer has not been detected under field conditions. Even in the laboratory, it could only be provoked with the help of specially constructed recipient bacteria.
To assess the likelihood and the significance of a possible transfer of antibiotic- resistance genes from transgenic plants to bacteria, scientists from France and Switzerland have studied soil bacteria from a field in south western France where genetically modified Bt176 maize has been growing for 10 years. By way of comparison, soil samples from a conventional maize field and from uncultivated land (prairie soil) were also investigated.
According to the following article, since Bt maize was introduced in Europe, crop yields have gone up, farmers’ reliance on insecticides has fallen significantly and the quality of maize has improved. This is great to see.
C.S. Prakash
Navigating the genetic engineering maze
Alpha Galileo
May 8, 2008
In the decade since genetically modified strains of maize resistant to insects have been grown in the European Union, crop yields have gone up, farmers' reliance on insecticides has fallen significantly and the quality of maize has improved. That's the message from research published this month in the International Journal of Biotechnology from Inderscience Publishers.
Agricultural economist Graham Brookes of PG Economics Ltd, based in Dorchester, UK, has reviewed the specific economic impacts on yield and farm income as well as the environmental impact with respect to a lower reliance on insecticide usage since the introduction of GM maize in the EU in 1998.
So-called "Bt" maize carries genes for a highly specific insect toxin from the soil-dwelling microbe Bacillus thuringiensis. This toxin kills the European corn borer and the Mediterranean stem borer, which would otherwise damage maize crops without insecticidal spraying.
Brookes' analysis reveals that profits have risen by more than a fifth for some farmers who previously used synthetic insecticides to control these pests. He points out that GM technology has reduced insecticide spraying markedly, which also has associated environmental benefits. He also points out that the quality of the maize produced is higher because the GM crop is less susceptible than non-GM maize to infestation with fungi that produce mycotoxins, hazardous to human health.
Bt maize was planted for the first time in 1998 in Spain and in 2007 the total area of this crop in Spain was about 75000 hectares. In total, the EU plantings of Bt maize in 2007 were 110,000 hectares, with crops also in France, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Poland. This represents 1.3% of total EU grain maize plantings in 2007.
Aaron Golas posted the following entry in his blog Synapostasy criticizing Andrew Kimbrell for speaking out against genetically modified sugar beets. Golas points out that, despite Kimbrell’s claims, GM sugar beets do not produce glyphosate, they merely are resistant to it.
C.S. Prakash
Not-Monsters Adding Not-Poison to Sugar
Synapostasy blog
May 08, 2008
Andrew Kimbrell is a goddamn bio-Luddite, one of many.
It embarrasses me that certain liberals can be so staunchly and irrationally opposed to technology, based upon paranoia over corporate interest, a weirdly conservative adherence to the simple purity of "Nature," and their own naked ignorance. One of the major victims of bio-Luddite oppression is genetically modified (GM) foods, sometimes referred to as "Frankenfoods" (but not by me).
In a column today in the Huffington Post, Kimbrell sows paranoia over a specific GM crop, the Roundup Ready sugar beet developed by Monsanto. These sugar beets are genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup.
GM opponents often have a hard time explaining just what makes GM food so dangerous. Sometimes it's argued that the introduced genes themselves are somehow pollutive, despite the fact that it's all the same adenine guanine cytosine thymine, baby. Kimbrell makes a particularly poor argument here, based on glyphosate:
At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5,000% -- glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Sugar is extracted from the beet's root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.
He then goes on about how seed farmers could start making seeds from Roundup Ready sugar beets so the GM crop spreads, and how sugar from GM beets gets mixed in with regular beets, and how GM beet pollen could contaminate other crops' genetics, and how there could be a huge consumer backlash, and how Big Science is putting poison in your dear mother's chocolates OMG!!!
Even the former UN World Food Program Executive Director Jim Morris supports ethanol, this is great to see! As he points out, “food should be used to feed people before being turned into fuel, but [he] also thinks it’s moral to use food for fuels.” Well said.
C.S. Prakash
Ex-food chief: Crops for fuel is OK
NewsTalk
May 5, 2008
In his five years as executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, Jim Morris saw global hunger from an uncomfortably close vantage point.
So, one might expect him to criticize the idea of turning corn and soybeans into alternative fuels. After all, the ethanol and biodiesel plants popping up in Indiana and elsewhere across the Midwest siphon food away from people who are starving to death at the rate of one every five seconds.
But that’s not what he thinks.
Now president of the Indiana Pacers, Morris still believes food should be used to feed people before being turned into fuel, but he also thinks it’s moral to use food for fuels.
“We have a fair balance,” he says. “It’s not an either-or situation.”
Morris, who helped launch amateur sports in Indianapolis and once led Lilly Endowment, quickly adds caveats.
More countries need to get over their fears of biotech crops. Genetically engineered crops are hardier and have great potential to increase food production, he says, a notion China and India have begun to embrace but Africa still needs to learn.
Science Daily recently published an article that claims herbicide tolerant crops can improve water quality. The article cites a study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH. Read more about the study below and the follow the link to the Genetic Modification blog to finish.
C.S. Prakash
Herbicide Tolerant Plants Can Help Improve Water Quality
Genetic Modification blog
April 23, 2008
Although genetically modified crops are getting so much flak today, there seems to be some instances where they may provide some positive benefits in some areas related to farming and the environment. According to an article on the sciencedaily website, a team of researchers found out that genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may have helped reduce herbicide runoff in watersheds and improve water quality in a four-year span.
A four-year study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH, aimed to compare the relative losses of residual and contact herbicides when applied at normal rates. Both types of herbicides were applied to seven small watersheds that was planted with genetically modified Liberty Linked corn and Roundup Ready soybean. Residual herbicides are the type of herbicides more commonly used for most organic crops while contact herbicides began its use with the introduction of genetically modified herbicide resistant crops.
The researchers noted that losses of contact herbicides were usually much less in surface run-off than for those areas where residual herbicides were used as a percentage of the amount of herbicide that was used. When averaged for all the soybean crop years, glyphosate runoff was about one half that of alachlor and one seventh of metribuzin, two of the residual herbicides that can be replaced by the contact herbicide Roundup. In the same study, another contact herbicide, glufosinate (Liberty) has an average runoff loss one fourth that of atrazine, a type of residual herbicide for corn crops that it can replace.
Residual herbicide runoff in different bodies of water has been a constant problem in areas of the country where farming is practiced. These residual herbicides find their way in nearby rivers, streams and lakes as well as water reservoirs and build up concentrations that can exceed drinking water standards. This poses a problem if those bodies of water are also used as sources of drinking water. This contamination can lead to increased costs when treating the water supply and may even result for the need to look for alternative sources of water supply.
The study showed that replacing residual herbicides with that of contact herbicides while planting genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may help avoid contaminating watersheds and water supply sources from excessive herbicide surface runoffs.
The New York Times published an article today on the growing demand for European countries to accept genetically modified feed. Livestock farmers are being forced to pay extremely high prices for organic feed because GM feed is banned in Europe. A surge in interest concerning the development of genetically modified grains, specifically wheat is also discussed. Read more below.
C.S. Prakash
In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo
New York Times
April 21, 2008
Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.
In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky.
“We cannot afford it,” said a corn buyer at Kato Kagaku, a Japanese maker of corn starch and corn syrup.
In the United States, wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease. Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and that they might pose risks to health and the environment.
“I think it’s pretty clear that price and supply concerns have people thinking a little bit differently today,” said Steve Mercer, a spokesman for U.S. Wheat Associates, a federally supported cooperative that promotes American wheat abroad.
A UK food manufacturing magazine is disputing claims made by the Soil Association that genetically modified crops do not increase yield. Food Manufacture, the UK’s leading food and drink market magazine published an article quoting Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics as saying that he is frustrated with reports that simply “cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument.”
C.S. Prakash
Organic lobby spreading ‘nonsense’ about GM, claim scientists
Food Manufacture
April 21, 2008
New claims by environmental lobbyists that genetic modification (GM) does not increase crop yields or reduce pesticide use have been dismissed by plant breeding experts as “total nonsense”.
According to the Soil Association (SA), “the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties”, while “any initial reduction in pesticide use is short-lived and often reversed as new pests arrive and old ones adapt”. Its comments came in the wake of recent moves to reignite the GM debate by scientists claiming that transgenic crops could boost agricultural productivity in the face of global food shortages and climate change.
Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics, said he was becoming “increasingly frustrated by reports that cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument”.
Brookes, a joint author of a major report on the environmental and economic impact of agricultural biotechnology published last year, said: “This is just complete nonsense. Pesticide use has not increased as a result of the adoption of biotech crops – indeed, it has fallen significantly relative to levels of use that would have occurred without using biotechnology.”
Likewise, it was “deeply insulting to the intelligence of farmers” to say that there were no economic benefits to using GM technology, he said. “They criticise biotech companies for having a vested interest - along the lines of ‘you would say that wouldn’t you’, but they also have a vested interest in attacking GM crops and supporting organic agriculture, which typically delivers far lower yields.”
The Western Australia Farmers Federation is backing the use of genetically modified crops as a way for farmers to cut reliance on fertilizer. The following article states that the price of fertilizer has risen drastically this year, prompting the government to look into the fertilizer industry and causing farmers to take another look at GM crops.
C.S. Prakash
GM crops cut reliance on fertiliser: WAFF
ABC News
April 21, 2008
Western Australia's peak farm body is backing the use of Genetically Modified Crops as a way of cutting a reliance on fertiliser.
Some fertiliser prices have risen almost three-fold this year, prompting a Senate inquiry into the fertiliser industry.
In a submission to the inquiry, WA Farmers Federation Economist Julian Breheny says the increases are enough of a shock to outweigh the emotional arguments against GM crops.
"It can improve fertiliser use efficiency and I think that as we go forward and we see possible rises due to shortages then its very important that we consider all options," he said.
"I just don't think that we can ignore science that has already proved in concept that it can improve fertiliser use efficiency, and I think that as we see possible rises due to shortages its very important that we consider all options."
Check out this random blog entry by Jackie Danicki. She loudly proclaims that she is not afraid to eat genetically modified foods and is tired of others telling her not to. Great job Jackie!
C.S. Prakash
On genetically modified food
Jackie Danicki
April 18, 2008
People always look at me in horror when I say that I have zero problem with eating genetically modified foods. Even if I did, I would not consider it up to you or any politician to decide whether or not I should be permitted to do so, or whether it should be legal to do so or not. Of course it should be legal. Of course one should be allowed to eat whatever one wishes. If you are to make the offensive suggestion that it is your or another person’s decision to make for me, the onus is on you to make the case for that.
So, yeah: Pass the franken-food.
I would like to ask some of the [GM critics] how they imagine most strains of wheat, barley, soybeans or rice that have been staples of diets for centuries came along. They are, albeit through trial and error over eons, just as ‘modified’ as a Monsanto crop. And that I think is the kicker: it is the speed of scientific change, not the change as such, that gives people the heeby-jeebies about genetic modification. I am not sure how that can be easily addressed without massive improvements in popular understanding of science.
Reuters also posted an article on the trouble BASF is having in Europe. This report states that BASF is considering legal action if the EU does not approve its genetically modified potato for commercial cultivation. The article also reinforces that the potato would be used solely for industrial purpose, such as making paper, due to its high starch content.
C.S. Prakash
BASF ready for lawsuit against EU on GMO potato
Reuters
April 17, 2008
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - German chemical company BASF may take legal action against the European Commission if approval of its genetically modified (GMO) potato is not issued soon, a senior company official said on Thursday.
"We are prepared to take legal action against the Commission," said Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF's board of executive directors told reporters at a briefing.
Asked about a possible timeframe, he said: "Not years, we are doing the utmost to meet the next planting season."
After an inconclusive meeting this week with EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, BASF sent him an open letter -- printed across German media, the Financial Times and other newspapers on Thursday -- demanding that the Commission approve its Amflora potato "without any further delay".
If approval is given, it would be the EU's first authorization of a GMO product for cultivation in a decade. Only one GMO crop may be grown commercially in the EU, a maize made by U.S. biotech company Monsanto and approved in 1998.
"We have not been satisfied with the process of approval so we took this unusual step (of the open letter)," Marcinowski said. "The decision has been sitting for nine months on the desk of Commissioner Dimas."
The UK Telegraph published the following article today on Europe’s resistance to genetically modified crops and food. Citing food shortages, the author says that the acceptance of GM crops in Europe will encourage other parts of the world to follow, and help eliminate food shortages.
C.S. Prakash
GM crops can save us from food shortages
The Telegraph
April 17, 2008
It is remarkable how rapidly the world has moved from worrying about deflation to worrying about inflation; from cheer to despondency about the reduction of poverty; and from concern about food surpluses to panic about shortages.
The hand of rising food prices is suddenly seen everywhere: in the riots in Tibet against Chinese rule; in drastic measures in the Philippines, Egypt, India and many African countries to restrict food exports; in calls for more aid; and even in the Bank of England's reluctance to cut interest rates as fast as its American counterpart.
For agricultural commodity prices (what we call "food") to have more than doubled in the past three years is an astonishing and worrying turn of events. But in responding to it, we need to understand the true nature of the problem.
And we must recognise that a big part of this problem is our own fault - because of our ill thought-out enthusiasm for using food to fuel cars as well as stomachs; and because of our longer-established but also ill considered opposition to the use of genetic engineering to help us grow more food.
Start with the true nature of the problem of food-price inflation. Most attention has been given to shortages in supply and to the increased appetite in China and India for meat, which requires more grain.
I found this article in Forbes today on biotechnology seed maker BASF. According to the article, EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas refuses to lift the ban on growing BASF’s genetically modified potato, Amflora. Check out the article below and let me know what you think, is Dimas being unreasonable?
C.S. Prakash
BASF demands approval of genetically modified potato from EU's Dimas
Forbes
April 17, 2008
FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - BASF SE. said it published an open letter to EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas demanding speedy approval of genetically modified potato Amflora for commercial cultivation after a meeting between Dimas and the company on Tuesday failed to produce an agreement.
'Representatives from the Commission were not able to present new scientific findings that would argue against approving Amflora for commercial cultivation in Europe,' BASF said in a statement.
A decision on the matter has been outstanding since July 2007, and BASF last year said it expects approval in September 2007.
'An important future technology that offers benefits to farmers and the starch industry in Europe is being blocked without any reason,' BASF said in a statement.
'And even though all steps in the EU approval process have been taken successfully, Mr. Dimas failed to grant approval.'
BASF earlier this year said the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recommended approval of the cultivation of Amflora and of use of the potato as feed, stating Amflora is as safe for humans, animals and the environment as conventional potatoes.
I ran across an interesting blog post by GMO Africa blogger James Wachai today. He links to a blog post written by rice geneticist Dr. Pamela Ronald, who writes positively about genetically modified crops. He notes, and I agree, that it’s great to see a scientist writing positively on this subject; it doesn’t happen enough.
C.S. Prakash
UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering
GMO Africa
April 15, 2008
Blogger Karl J. Mogel of The Inoculated writes that Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table. Pam’s blog celebrates crop genetic engineering, from a scientist point of view.
Nobody’s excited by Pam’s blog than me. On this blog, on several occasions, I’ve exhorted scientists to take charge of the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Read this post on this subject that I made in December 2006.) Thumbs up Pam for taking the gauntlet.
Since the commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1995, scientists haven’t been forceful enough to educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. Many - except people like Norman Borlaug, Roger Beachy, Sir David King, Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Clive James, Dr. Luciana De Ciero, Dr. Ruth Oniang’o - have opted to maintain a studious silence as the science behind crop genetic engineering is distorted right and left by people who couldn’t conduct a simple high school lab experiment. These are the people who have been ruling the airwaves and the internet with unsubstantiated decibel rhetoric against GMOs.
Scientists are to blame for this state of affairs. Had they, in the early beginning, demanded every charge against GMOs be scientifically substantiated, the current poisonous debate about GM crops would not be there. And it’s not too late. Pam, through her Tomorrow Table blog, has set the pace: others should follow.
The world wants scientists to take lead in this debate. It’s them who should be saying whether or not GM crops offer any hope to farmers not some shenanigans whose sole motive is to create confusion and despondency in farmers and policy makers.
GMO Africa blogger James Wachai posted the following blog entry on an interview conducted by Reason Magazine with Robert Paarlberg on GMOs and Africa. James has a lot of interesting comments on the issues raised by the interview; check them out below.
C.S. Prakash
Journalist counsels Africa on GMOs
GMO Africa
April 2, 2008
Journalist Kerry Howley of the Reason magazine has written a very riveting and informative article on how fear is being used to deny Africa cutting-edge technologies. Howley writes how activists descend on Africa every time new technologies emerge. They, using apocalyptic theories, misadvise and mislead Africans into not embracing these technologies.
Africans are usually warned of cataclysmic consequences if they adopt new technologies. Usually, they’re told the West wants to use them as guinea pigs, or to enslave them. Most play along, thanks to high illiteracy levels and unavailability and/or access to alternative sources of information. Always the consequences are grave: the rest of the world prospers, while Africa wallows in poverty. Essentially, Africa merely gawks as other countries industrialize.
Howley beautifully illustrates this point using the swirling debate about genetically modified (GM) foods. She writes how African countries have shunned GM foods on the advice of consumer advocacy groups such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. These groups happen to have a big presence in Africa
Except South Africa, no other African country is currently growing genetically modified (GM) crops. We’ve read reports of countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe turning away food from the World Food Program (WFP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USaid) on suspicions they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) Many African countries have passed laws to completely bar GM crops.
In her article, Howley laments that Zambia and Zimbabwe’s turning away of GM food “…brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state.” She regrets that “…cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed.”
Saw this blog entry while surfing around today. Roger Beachy of the Danforth Center was speaking to students at the University of California – Davis about the negative views associated with genetically modified organisms Beachy said many consumers have a bad opinion or GMOs because the media has portrayed them in that way. Read more about Beachy’s views below.
C.S. Prakash
Let the people decide on GMOs
The Notes from a Gene Safari blog
April 2, 2008
Roger Beachy (of the Danforth Center) came to UC Davis this week to give a seminar. The grad students had the good fortune of meeting with him over lunch. He has some very interesting perspectives on genetic engineering that I haven't heard before.
One of his most striking points was that all this hype we hear of the public being against GMOs is largely generated by the media. The consumer public has been given very few opportunities to make decisions for themselves. He gave several examples of the public enthusiastically embracing GMOs.
Much more importantly, he described the center's humanitarian efforts in Africa. They are engineering crops with disease resistance and greatly elevated levels of vitamins and protein to fight malnutrition. They are also creating corn varieties that are resistant to a fungal disease that has been linked to devastating cancer rates in certain regions (the fungus infects corn naturally and produces a carcinogenic toxin, fumonisin).
I ran across this blog entry today about the GMO debate in Hawaii. Hawaiian legislators have temporary shelved a bill that would ban the cultivation of GMO coffee in Hawaii. The legislators have asked for a study into “the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops” first.
C.S. Prakash
Hawaii Won't Ban GM Coffee
Organic or Bust blog
April 2, 2008
"Hawaii won't ban genetically altered coffee, a decision that worries growers of the Kona coffee brand who want to keep it pure.
State lawmakers shelved a bill recently that would have prohibited growing genetically modified coffee in Hawaii until 2012. Instead, they want to order a study into the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops.
Coffee farmers are worried that genetically modified coffee could contaminate expensive Kona blends, which are only grown on Hawaii's Big Island and exported worldwide.
"The fact that you're creating a 'frankenfood' is very scary. What will it do to my morning cup of coffee?" asked John Langenstein, sales manager for Koa Coffee Plantation."
The Hungarian Agricultural Minister, József Gráf, called for a ban on genetically modified crops to be lifted at a conference hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He also admitted that they must proceed with caution, however. According to the article below, Hungary requires a buffer zone between GM and conventional crops, as well as permission from neighboring farmers to plant GM crops right now.
C.S. Prakash
Hungarian minister alludes to lifting ban on GM crops
Check Biotech
March 7, 2008
Agricultural Minister József Gráf said Hungary can not maintain a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops but caution is necessary regarding its scientific effects. He was speaking at a conference hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Gráf said the agricultural community, society and the government are all divided over the issue. New technology cannot be shut out completely, but any loosening of the law requires safety questions being proven absolutely, he added.
Hungary, one of Europe's main seed producers, has passed strict laws that prescribe buffer zones between GM and conventional crops. Farmers also need the approval of neighbouring landowners and users to plant GM crops.
GMO Africa blogger James Wachai always seems to be on top of things. Read his latest entry below on the importance of biosafety laws in Africa.
C.S. Prakash
Researcher wants biosafety laws in Africa
GMO Africa
March 6, 2008
Professor Walter Alhassan, a renowned agricultural biotechnologist from Ghana, recently raised a very salient issue regarding agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Alhassan moaned the unwillingness by African governments to enact laws to regulate safe acquisition of agricultural biotechnology. Alhassan regretted that the absence of biosafety laws in many African countries remains the greatest impediment to serious research on genetically modified crops in the continent.
I can’t but totally concur with Prof. Alhassan, and I would encourage other scientists, especially from Africa to stand by him. Unlike pro-biotech lobby groups and multinational biotechnology companies, they’ve the requisite credibility to force their respective governments to act. They’re the right people to explain, unabashedly, what biosafety laws entail. I say this because there’s this conventional belief in most African countries that the sole mission of biosafety laws should be to keep off genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from their territories. Sample this April 2007 statement from Zambia’s Chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee, who said a biosafety law was needed to ensure “…Zambia remains a GMO free country.”
On this blog, just like Prof. Alhassan has said, I once emphasized that the first step to Africa benefiting from new technologies, including modern agricultural biotechnology, is to enact laws to regulate their acquisition. When computers emerged, African countries tried as much as they could to pass Information Technology (IT) laws to ensure their use for government and private businesses. The vigor with which African countries have enacted IT laws to ensure their safe use must, now, be applied to agricultural biotechnology. You can’t adjudge a technology - the way African governments are trying to do - as bad or good, before experiencing it. Europe, whose opposition to GMOs Africa seems to ape, is already conducting field trials of GM crops. Africa countries, except South Africa, are nowhere closer to here. They’re still dialoguing about whether biosafety laws have relevance to them. Isn’t this the time for Africa to heed Prof. Alhassan’s advice and pass biosafety laws, to allow farmers explore potential benefits agricultural biotechnology.
There has been a lot of conversation about the rising price of grain in Europe right now. The Irish Times published the following article (reposted by Check Biotech) on the need to lift restrictions on genetically modified animal feed to help livestock owners survive.
C.S. Prakash
North Ireland plea over GM food imports
Check Biotech
March 6, 2008
Northern Ireland farmers must be allowed to import genetically modified (GM) animal feed to help them survive in the face of spiralling grain costs, Assembly members have claimed.
In a debate on the impact of the inflated global feed markets on the local intensive farming sector MLAs backed a proposal calling on the EU to loosen restrictions on the import of biotech feedstuffs.
The DUP added this amendment to an original Ulster Unionist motion urging the Agriculture minister Michelle Gildernew to provide financial support to those farmers who are struggling to cope with a 159% hike in grain prices in the last year.
William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh) said the livelihood of many farmers depended on the EU lifting restrictions on GM feed for animals
"These are being grown on an increasing scale in America and would go some way to addressing the grain shortage."
Check out the following article on the growing acceptance of GM crops in the European Union. According to the article there is currently almost 110,000 hectares cultivated with GM maize in the EU, up from only 62,000 in 2006.
C.S. Prakash
GM Maize: 110,000 Hectares under Cultivation
Check Biotech
March 4, 2008
The cultivation of genetically modified plants in the EU is increasing. In 2007, genetically modified maize was grown on a total of nearly 110,000 hectares in Spain, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Germany. In the previous year, GM plantings comprised 62,000 hectares, totalling approximately 1 percent of maize cultivation areas.
To date, the only type of GMO grown in the EU is Bt maize. Bt maize contains a gene from a bacterium that produces a toxin ( Bt-toxin) to defend it from the European corn borer. An insect pest, the European corn borer primarily is present in southern and middle Europe, and is slowly making its way north.
Regions infested with the European corn borer can experience serious crop losses. Since biological and chemical control methods are expensive and only partially effective, Bt maize can be a money-saving option for many farmers despite its higher seed cost.
In Spain, a substantial amount of the maize production is genetically modified – it is estimated that 25 percent of the current production falls under this category. Bt maize was first grown in Spain in 1998, and by 2004 production had risen to 60,000 hectares. In 2007, GM maize was cultivated on more than 75,000 hectares.
Check out this new book I ran across today. Titled “Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa,” Robert Paarlberg explores the reasons why poor African farmers are denied access to technology such as genetically modified seeds.
C.S. Prakash
Starved for Science
Harvard University Press
March 1, 2008
Heading upcountry in Africa to visit small farms is absolutely exhilarating given the dramatic beauty of big skies, red soil, and arid vistas, but eventually the two-lane tarmac narrows to rutted dirt, and the journey must continue on foot. The farmers you eventually meet are mostly women, hardworking but visibly poor. They have no improved seeds, no chemical fertilizers, no irrigation, and with their meager crops they earn less than a dollar a day. Many are malnourished.
Nearly two-thirds of Africans are employed in agriculture, yet on a per-capita basis they produce roughly 20 percent less than they did in 1970. Although modern agricultural science was the key to reducing rural poverty in Asia, modern farm science—including biotechnology—has recently been kept out of Africa.
In Starved for Science Robert Paarlberg explains why poor African farmers are denied access to productive technologies, particularly genetically engineered seeds with improved resistance to insects and drought. He traces this obstacle to the current opposition to farm science in prosperous countries. Having embraced agricultural science to become well-fed themselves, those in wealthy countries are now instructing Africans—on the most dubious grounds—not to do the same.
In a book sure to generate intense debate, Paarlberg details how this cultural turn against agricultural science among affluent societies is now being exported, inappropriately, to Africa. Those who are opposed to the use of agricultural technologies are telling African farmers that, in effect, it would be just as well for them to remain poor.
The following commentary by Henry I Miller was published in the Washington Post this week on the rejection of genetically modified products by much of Europe. The commentary mentions that the European Commission recently ruled that GM animal feed would not be allowed into the European Union, despite claims that the livestock industry would be “slaughtered” if something wasn’t done. The piece also includes background on the approval process of new GM products in Europe.
C.S. Prakash
Agricultural trade squeals
Washington Times
February 29, 2008
European Union officials adamantly refuse to let the World Trade Organization save them from themselves.
Despite a 2005 WTO ruling that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the importation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified (GM)," crops and foods, Europe remains recalcitrant, unrepentant — and on the verge of slaughtering its own livestock industry.
European Union agriculture ministers failed yet again Monday to permit imports of five biotech crops intended for animal feed, causing a group that represents European farmers to warn that without greater use of gene-spliced crops, the livestock industry could be decimated.
European shortages of grain for animal feed and soaring prices — caused by both the rejection of gene-spliced grains and the diversion of corn to production of ethanol for fuel — are causing panic among livestock producers. Pig and poultry farmers have been forced to reduce their output, while consumer consumption is down because of higher prices.
Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."
I ran across the following post today on the development of drought-tolerant crops. The author does not appear to take a stance on the subject, and pulls much of his information from this BBC article, which describes what researchers are working on and how it will help in times of drought.
C.S. Prakash
Drought Resistant Plants Could Fight Global Warming and World Hunger
Environmental Graffiti
February 28, 2008
There are a variety of reasons for this, from fear of potential negative health effects to anger at the Monsanto corporation’s business policies with the patented seeds. But there are other groups who fully support GMO crops and research, citing the benefit to the world’s hungry brought about by plants with increased nutritional value and ability to grow in harsh circumstances.
I’m interested to see how both camps react to the newest announcement in GMO crops. U.S. and Finnish researchers recently announced the discovery of the plant gene that controls the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed and water released by a plant.
In practical terms, this means a plant that could both survive in severe drought conditions AND help fight global warming effects.
The gene they discovered controls the tiny pores known as stomata that are located on the leaves of plants. They play a crucial role in photosynthesis, as the plant absorbs carbon dioxide gas through these pores. Water vapor is also released through the stomata as the plant grows.
The researchers, writing in the journal Nature, say the discovery may allow them to genetically modify a plant that will continue absorbing CO2, and possibly even absorb more, but release less water vapor. As plants lose 95% of their water through the stomata, this would mean a plant that could survive in extremely dry conditions.
As it stands now, droughts are one of the most destructive natural forces on the planet when it comes to agriculture. In impoverished areas where many subsistence farmers are growing just to survive, a drought can destroy not only crops but lives. Many drought stricken areas are also areas of extreme poverty and hunger, so a drought resistant crop could help food production rates rise and hunger drop.
I found the following commentary in AgriMarketing Magazine on the growing acceptance of biotechnology in the baking industry. The author notes that a few years ago there was a lot of resistance for genetically modified wheat because bakers and millers believed that genetic engineering only benefited the farmer. However now, with more and more farmers switching to GM corn and/or soybeans and away from the less profitable wheat crop, bakers and millers are seeing prices rise and are starting to realize the importance of the technology.
C.S. Prakash
Bakers starting to see folly of rejecting biotechnology
AgriMarketing
February 28, 2008
OpEd written By PAUL AASNESS, who farms near Fergus Falls, MN, is a board member of Growers for Biotechnology (www.growersforbiotechnology.org)
Despite the fact that most wheat farmers have welcomed the advent of biotechnology, end users have not been so supportive.
The end user, especially millers and bakers, argued that the advantages gained with biotechnology were for the growers' benefit only. They made it clear that they were not interested in purchasing commodities that were genetically modified -- especially wheat.
It seems now, however, that the tide may be turning. The milling and baking industry is suddenly realizing that the sky-high cost and critically short supply of wheat is directly related to the absence of efficient technologies in wheat.
Farmers, including myself, have seen huge advantages in growing biotech corn and soybeans. Many of us have reduced our wheat acres steadily in the past 10 years since biotech corn and soybeans became available. Control of pests such as corn borer and corn rootworm and superior weed control with Roundup Ready corn and soybeans have been welcomed with open arms wherever they have been tried. Today, 73 percent of the corn and 91 percent of the soybean acres in the United States have one or more biotech traits. All this has taken place in a little over 10 years since biotech seeds were first available to us. It's hard to justify fighting to produce wheat when it's much more efficient and profitable to produce a biotech crop.
Despite calls to maintain a ban on genetically modified canola in the Australian state of Victoria, the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) is sticking by its endorsement. The following ABC News article quotes VFF president Simon Ramsay as saying that by ending the moratorium of GM grain farmers will have more choices and can take advantage of new technology.
C.S. Prakash
VFF says GM crops give farmers 'choice'
ABC News
February 27, 2008
The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) is countering calls from anti-genetically modified (GM) food groups for the Government to maintain its ban on genetically modified canola.
The moratorium on GM canola expires in Victoria tomorrow, allowing seed and chemical companies to start selling their patented seeds.
Anti-GM groups are concerned conventional crops will be contaminated, and that herbicide resistant canola will become an environmental weed.
VFF president Simon Ramsay says farmers will be able to start the accreditation process to grow and sell GM grain under licence.
"What's important now with the sun setting here in Victoria tomorrow is that farmers will be able to have that choice, they'll be able to take advantage of the new technology," he said.
"It not only has good economic outcomes, but it has good environmental outcomes and that's important given that farmers are facing the challenge of climate change."
The Environmental News Network posted an article announcing that South Korea will begin importing genetically modified corn from the US for manufacturing starch and sweeteners. This will be the first time South Korea has imported GM products, as there is an enormous opposition for them in the country. According to the article, trade sources say this move was economical, as conventional corn costs around $50 a ton more than genetically modified corn.
C.S. Prakash
South Korea breaks GMO taboo with first corn deal
Environmental News Network
February 26, 2008
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea has for the first time bought genetically-modified corn for food, risking a backlash from consumer groups to secure cheaper grains.
With record high global wheat, corn and other food prices making governments increasingly anxious about staple supplies and quickening inflation, the debate over the merits and safety of GMO crops is taking on new urgency.
On Tuesday South Korea, one of only two countries in Asia to stick with more expensive non-GMO corn for food use, said it will import 50,000 tons of U.S. genetically-altered corn in May for manufacturing starch and sweeteners.
Trade sources said the decision was economic. Corn that has not been modified costs around $50 a ton more than the genetically-altered variety, an important factor when corn prices have more than doubled in the last two years.
But it has drawn ire from consumer groups, who say it will expose consumers to possible health risks, echoing European resistance to what lobby groups there call "Frankenstein foods."
"If the companies go ahead with the move the groups will join hands and carry out campaigning and boycott products from those manufacturers," said spokesman Kim Dae-hoon of ICOOP, South Korea's largest consumer lobby group.
Check out the following letter to the editor of the Canberra Times in Australia. The author is seeking to correct a previous article on GM canola and its benefits.
C.S. Prakash
Canadian agronomists detail the benefits of GM canola in the ground.
GMO Pundit
February 26, 2008
Dr Rene Van Acker is right to suggest Australia should learn from Canada's experiences regarding genetically modified canola (Look to Canada for GE solutions, February 5, p11).
However, he is less correct in the Canadian lessons he gives. The benefits of herbicide tolerant canola for western Canada have far out weighed the risks over the last 11 years.
A recent study on the impacts of GMHT canola in western Canada carried out by the University of Saskatchewan gives some real life lessons that can be heeded. Results show that 90 per cent of canola farmers report reduced soil erosion and increased soil moisture conservation.
Sixty per cent of growers reported a carry-over benefit to the subsequent crop year in terms of improved weed control, with half of these growers assigning a dollar value of $A13.09, or about the cost of one glyphosate application in Canada. Fifty per cent reported they used no chemicals on crops that followed GMHT canola which had dramatically reduced the volume of chemicals applied to fields.
Canola used to be reserved for the most weed-free fields but is now a crop for difficult fields with weed problems.
In addition to the direct benefits to growers of increased yield and profitability, breeding and crop development activities by private companies has increased dramatically. The result has been more (150) and higher-yielding hybrid variety choices.
I just found this article in the UK newspaper The Telegraph. It seems researchers at Open University in the United Kingdom conducted a study that found farmers in the UK are in favor of growing genetically modified crops as long as they provide economic benefits to the farmer. According to the article, the farmers interviewed also felt that GM crops could help produce enough high-quality food to feed the citizens of the UK as the country's climate changes and the population soars. Check out the article below.
C.S. Prakash
UK farmers want to grow GM crops
The Telegraph
February 24, 2008
Farmers are in favour of growing genetically modified crops in Britain despite public fears over their safety, new research has revealed.
An Open University study has found that farmers and farming industry leaders believe GM technology is the only way to produce enough high-quality food as the country's climate changes and the population soars.
Farmers claim that using GM crops will help them cut down on herbicides and pesticides while increasing the amount of food that can be harvested.
But their views contrast with the strong public scepticism over GM foods and fears that the genes artificially introduced into plants could escape into the wild, changing natural plants.
Prof Andy Lane, who led the series of interviews and workshops with 50 farmers and members of farming organisations, said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum."
The findings come just one week after government officials confirmed they were considering growing GM crops at secret locations to combat vandalism caused by anti-GM campaigners.
Biotechnology companies have warned the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that GM trials have become too expensive to conduct in Britain.
The debate over GM crops was reignited last year by the Government's former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, who claimed opposition to GM technology was leaving Britain at a competitive disadvantage.
Farming leaders also agree that they are suffering as other countries have embraced biotechnology.
Science Daily published an article on a study conducted at Open University in the United Kingdom on how farmers feel about genetically modified crops. The research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that farmers are actually in favor of GM crops as long as they provide economic benefits to the farmer.
C.S. Prakash
What Farmers Think About GM Crops
Science Daily
February 24, 2008
Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
A group at the Open University, led by Professor Andy Lane, has taken the first systematic look at what large-scale, commodity farmers -- not those mainly involved in organic growing - think about genetically-modified crops. We know how consumers, governments and the food industry regard GM, but this is the first proper look at the attitudes of the people who would use GM crops.
Lane and his colleagues found that both farmers who have been involved in GM crop trials and those who have not, regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, such as those which have produced today's established crop types. They regard GM crops as an innovation which they would assess on its merits. Their real interest is in how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms. The research suggests that these farmers do not think that GM raises any issues of principle, or that it is a matter of right or wrong.
Professor Lane said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at once."
Reuters recently published the following article on the benefits of genetically modified crops. The article focuses on the need for GM crops at a time when food prices are rising sharply, with no slow down in sight. Read more about this below and then follow the link to read the full article.
C.S. Prakash
Pioneer sees GMOs gaining global market acceptance
Reuters
February 22, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rising food prices will encourage worldwide acceptance of genetically engineered crops as more consumers set aside health concerns for the lower prices that biotech crops may deliver, a leading seed company executive said.
Governments that have been slow to accept biotech crops, or GMOs, will find it increasingly difficult to deny access to the technologies as food costs are poised to continue climbing.
"The only way we're going to meet some of these demand expectations that we have and are going to have in the future is through improved productivity. A lot of that productivity will come through technology," said Paul Shickler, president of Pioneer Hi-Bred International and vice president of DuPont Co (DD.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
U.S. food prices rose by a 17-year high of 4 percent last year and were seen rising by another 3 to 4 percent in 2008. Food inflation was expected to outpace the general inflation rate through 2010, the U.S. Agriculture Department forecast.
Global food prices have risen even faster and will continue to do so, economists said.
Truth about Trade & Technology board member Reg Clause posted a commentary this week about the ISAAA report. His comments on the benefits of biotechnology and the response by advocacy group Friends of the Earth are posted below. Take a look at let me know what you think.
C.S. Prakash
The Farmers Choice
Truth about Trade & Technology
February 22, 2008
I noticed a news headline the other day, “Biotech reports spark debate over potential benefits.” I discovered two things upon reading the article. 1) Utilization of biotech crops is growing in double digits annually, increasing global productivity substantially, reducing poverty by helping farmers and keeping food affordable, reducing the environmental impacts of farming and contributing to the potential for cost effective biofuels. All backed up by objective evidence. 2) A group called “Friends of the Earth” will have none of this and take issue with the report line by line; generally backing up their statements with all-to-familiar spin and bluster.
Now, in regards to the “Friends” mentioned above, I couldn’t help thinking of a line from a comedian I once heard. He said, “some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I’m afraid of widths.”
I mean, really, there is no amount of good news that will satisfy some folks.
Check out the new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which determines the global area of biotech crops each year. The latest one, covering 2007, was just released. It tells a now familiar story of rapid growth in the use of biotech and the totally positive impacts on the environment and people’s lives.
Twelve million farmers in 23 countries were responsible for this achievement, up from 10.3 million in 21 countries in 2006. The number of biotech acres they planted increased by 12 percent from a year before. The newest members of the GM club are Chile and Poland.
Farmers in the United States accounted for about half of the world’s biotech acres. Growers in South America--mainly Argentina and Brazil, plus Paraguay and Uruguay--planted about one-third of the total. Canada, India, China, and South Africa also devoted substantial acreage to GM crops.
North Dakota’s Grand Forks Herald posted the following commentary from Bruce Freitag. The commentary focuses on the need by farmers to adopt new technologies in order to “meet this global demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel.” He specifically cites India and China as countries that are demanding more meat and protein, and many are calling for a new “Green Revolution” and easy access to modern technologies to boost productivity. Read more of this commentary beow.
C.S. Prakash
VIEWPOINT : Our world needs biotech foods
Grand Forks Herald
February 22, 2008
SCRANTON, N.D. - Just before giving up his post as interim U.S. agriculture secretary last month, Chuck Conner warned that growing enough corn, soybeans and wheat to meet food, feed and biofuel demands this year is going to be “very dicey.” We farmers were up to the challenge this year, but many of us are concerned that we will be denied the tools we need for the long run, he noted.
Renewable fuels are a new challenge. Congress has mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels per year by 2022 - a 130 percent increase over current ethanol production levels. Corn-based ethanol is expected to be about 40 percent of that.
Add in the vagaries of climate. Two years ago, drought in France and Spain resulted in the worst corn production in 50 years. In Australia, where drought has been persistent since 2002, some wheat farmers failed to harvest a crop for the first time in 40 years.
Wheat yields were also disappointing in Europe. U.S. corn production was down 5 percent because of drought in 2006, but it rebounded in 2007.
In December, Jacques Diouf, the head of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, warned that people were already starting to go hungry in poor countries because hotter weather was shrinkingthe food supply and pushing up prices.
Fellow biotechnology blogger James Wachai posted a new entry on his blog GMO Africa this week on the ISAAA report. His main focus is attempts by anti-biotech advocacy groups to mislead people into thinking that biotech crops are a bad thing. He also discusses the positive aspects of the report.
C.S. Prakash
ISAAA reports a surge in biotech crops cultivation
GMO Africa
February 21, 2008
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has released a report that shows a surge in cultivation of biotech crops. Contrary to many anti-biotech critics, the surge seems to portend biotech crops striking a nerve with farmers.
What’s perhaps more interesting is the fact that developing countries continue to perform as well as developed countries in growing biotech crops. This disambiguates a widely held argument that biotech crops are a preserve of developed countries. On this blog, in August 2006, I argued that smallholder farmers benefit from biotech crops as much as large-scale farmers.
Despite this, sadly, Africa continues to lag behind in the adoption of biotech crops. To the continent, crop genetic engineering remains an enigma. Politics has, unfairly, been infused into this debate. As the rest of the world angles itself to share the spoils of modern agricultural biotechnology, African countries, with the exception of South Africa, are still haggling on whether or not to admit biotech crops to their farms.
The 2007 ISAAA’s latest report, perhaps, sends an unambiguous message that there’s something striking in modern crop genetic engineering that Africa, and other parts of the developing world, can’t afford to ignore. Africa ought to know that a lot of debate swirling around biotech crops, principally, is meant to mislead and confuse. There are groups ought to hijack landmark scientific innovations, especially in the field of agricultural biotechnology, for their own selfish ends. Let’s all take a lesson from the ISAAA report, whose other highlights include:
The president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF), Iain Ferguson, recently gave a speech at the National Farmer's Union Conference in England. Ferguson endorsed genetic modification as a possible solution to the rising food costs and shortages. Read more about this in the following Food Navigator article.
C.S. Prakash
GM may provide solution to rising food prices
Food Navigator
February 20, 2008
The continuing increases in raw material costs could shine a favourable light on genetic modification as pressure mounts in Europe to boost harvests.
Speaking at yesterday's National Farmer's Union Conference, Iain Ferguson, chief executive of Tate & Lyle and president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF), said British food prices are rising at their fastest rate since records began.
He quoted the Daily Telegraph as saying food prices in the UK are fuelling a rise in the average family's annual shopping bill of £750.
"We have to face up to the issue of genetic modification and rise to the challenge of helping to foster a fair and scientific debate on an issue that has typically been clouded by suspicion and a lack of trust," Ferguson said.
"The current economic climate with rising food prices and concerns over long term availability of commodities may well give us the opportunity to begin to do this."
Farmers have remained cautious to support the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while consumers continue to express concern on their environmental impact and possible long term health risks.
Reason Magazine posted a commentary on its blog by science correspondent Ronald Bailey criticizing the recently released Friends of Earth report. The report is highly critical of biotech crops and pesticide use. Bailey instead points to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications’ (ISAAA) report as an example of how biotechnology serves as a “resource [for] poor farmers in developing countries.” Bailey calls Friends of Earth an “ideological environmentalist group” and its recent report “another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops.” Read more of this entry below.
C.S. Prakash
Are Farmers Stupid, or Deluded, or Both?
Reason Magazine
February 19, 2008
Last week, the ideological environmentalist group Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops. FOE's latest salvo is its report "Who Benefits from GM Crops?," issued explicitly to counter the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications' (ISAAA) annual global assessment of biotech crops. FOE claims biotech crops yield less than conventional crops, harm the environment, are technologically stagnant, have done nothing to help poor farmers, and are monopolized by a few giant corporations.
The ISAAA 2007 report on the global status paints a far different picture. The ISAAA notes that farmers around the world continue their rapid adoption of biotech crop varieties. In 2007 the global planting of biotech crops rose to an all time high of 282 million acres, a 12 percent increase over 2006. In addition, the number of farmers choosing to grow biotech crops rose from 10.3 million in 2006 to over 12 million in 2007. The ISAAA report notes that 11 million of the biotech growers are resource poor farmers in developing countries, the majority of whom cultivate insect-resistant cotton. Biotech crops are now planted in 23 countries, and 29 others have approved the import of biotech food and feed.
Let's look at FOE's claims about the alleged faults of biotech crops.
Do biotech crops yield less than conventional crops? FOE is artful in its use of data. Some biotech varieties did initially impose slight yield penalties when compared to conventional varieties. This occurred because breeders improved conventional varieties during the years it took biotech crops to be approved by regulatory agencies. Even so, farmers adopted slightly lower yielding biotech crops because they were cheaper to grow. Biotech crops need fewer pesticide applications and require less plowing. A 2006 study by the British agricutural and food economics consultancy, PG Economics, found no impact from biotech on soy yields while cotton and corn enjoyed higher yields. Even though biotech seeds cost more, overall lower production costs more than make up for the initial expense. The PG Economics report estimates that biotech crops have increased farm incomes by $27 billion since 1996.
According to the recent report published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications ninety percent of farmers growing genetically modified crops are from developing countries. The report states that 23 countries — 12 of which were developing nations — planted GM crops in 2007. In total, 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide, with 43 percent of the global GM crop area in developing countries. This is great news!
C.S. Prakash
GM production 'growing in developing countries'
SciDev.net
February 18, 2008
Ninety per cent of farmers growing genetically modified (GM) crops are from developing countries, according to a report.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit organisation promoting agricultural biotechnology for the poor, say that GM crops were grown by 11 million small and resource-poor farmers in 2007 — 90 per cent of the total number of GM-growing farmers worldwide.
This was an increase of 18.3 per cent from 2006, when some 9.3 million small farmers were represented.
"With increasing food prices globally, the benefits of biotech crops have never been more important," said Clive James, one of the authors of the report and chairman of the ISAAA, in a press statement.
According to the report, launched last week (13 February), 23 countries — 12 of which were developing nations — planted GM crops in 2007. In total, 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide, with 43 per cent of the global GM crop area in developing countries.
In terms of hectarage, the biggest GM producer is still the United States, followed by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.
Domestic Fuel posted an article reporting that the Massachusetts biotechnology company Metabolix Inc. and the Missouri-based Donald Danforth Plant Science Center are teaming up to develop an oilseed that can produce both biodiesel and plastics. The researchers are working to create to genetically modified oilseeds that will produce plastic polymers as they grow. Once harvested, the crop would be broken down into oil for biodiesel refineries and polymers for the production of bioplastics that break down into environmentally friendly waste. Read the article below to learn more.
C.S. Prakash
Growing a Seed for Biodiesel and Plastics
Domestic Fuel
February 8, 2008
A Massachusetts biotechnology company has joined with a Missouri research firm to develop an oilseed that can produce both biodiesel and plastics.
And this story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says Metabolix Inc. and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center will get some money from the state of Missouri to work on the idea:
“It’s exactly what the civic leadership in St. Louis has been positioning St. Louis and the state to become,” said Rob Monsees, executive director of the Missouri Technology Corp., which gave a $1.14 million state grant to the project. “Metabolix is hopefully the first of many examples of plant biotechnology companies that are going to be finding their way to Missouri.”
Scientists from the company and the Danforth Center are working to genetically modify certain oilseeds to produce plastic polymers as they grow. Once harvested, the crop would be broken down into oil for biodiesel refineries and polymers for the production of bioplastics that break down into environmentally friendly waste.
Bioplastics — plastic derived from plant or microbial sources, rather than petroleum — would provide biodiesel facilities with a valuable co-product that they could sell to offset the cost of producing fuel for autos and trucks.
“This is an opportunity that’s potentially very good in terms of the economics,” said Oliver Peoples, Metabolix co-founder and chief scientific officer.
The work will go on near the Danforth Center near St. Louis with plans to open a pilot plant in 2011.
Arcadia Biosciences will begin offering carbon credits to Chinese farmers who plant their rice, according to an article on Treehugger.com. The rice is genetically modified to require less nitrogen fertilizer, which would be less carbon dioxide would be released into the air. Under the Kyoto Treaty, the credits gained from that reduction can then be sold on the global market, bringing extra money to farmers.
C.S. Prakash
Genetically Modified Rice to Fight Global Warming in China
Treehugger.com
February 7, 2008
There are some smart people at Arcadia Biosciences. They not only have created a crop of rice that requires less nitrogen fertilizer, they also figured out a way to work with the Chinese government to allow Chinese farmers to get carbon credits when they use their rice. The reasoning is, less nitrogen fertilizer equals less nitrous oxide emissions (a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide). Under the Kyoto Treaty, the credits gained from that reduction can then be sold on the global market, bringing extra money to farmers. "Swapping global rice supply to the GM version, the company says, would save the equivalent of 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and generate £750m in carbon credits for farmers."
The widespread use of nitrogen fertiliser is reckoned to account for about one-third of agricultural emissions. Less than half the nitrogen is typically absorbed by crops, with the rest leaking into the soil and water supplies, or released to the air as nitrous oxide. The Arcadia technology inserts a gene that improves the nitrogen uptake, which means less fertiliser is needed to produce a given yield of crop.
From our point of view, this is a good thing as long as everything is completely and thoroughly tested for safety. Maybe if the choice was "perfect world" vs "GM crop", we wouldn't be in favor of it. But as things stand, our atmosphere could use less nitrous oxide, our water could use less nitrogen runoffs, Chinese farmers could use more money and biotech firms should get the signal that developing eco-beneficial crops is a good idea. Not to mention that most nitrogen fertilizer is made from fossil fuels (natural gas).
Arcadia is working to apply the improved nitrogen-absorption technology to GM wheat, rape seed oil, sugarbeet, maize, sugarcane, cotton and turf for golf courses and landscape gardening.
I ran across this article on David Tribe’s blog, GMO Pundit. Australia’s ABC News reported that genetically modified bananas will be field tested in Australia this year. The banana has extra genes that increase the levels of pro-vitamin A and iron. Read more about this below.
C.S. Prakash
Healthier GM bananas in Queensland
GMO Pundit blog
February 7, 2008
Australia's first genetically modified bananas could be growing in North Queensland by mid-year.
Scientists from the Queensland University of Technology will trial Cavendish bananas with extra genes that increase the levels of pro-vitamin A and iron in the fruit.
The technology will then be used to improve banana varieties in Uganda, where mineral and vitamin deficiencies are a big problem.
Professor James Dale says the field trials are a major step forward for the project.
"It will be the first field trial of genetically modified bananas in Australia and one of probably only three or four in the world", he says.
"It will be a very big step for us, fabulous to see the sort of genesis going from that first cell that we transformed back to a plant in the field, it's fairly exciting".
James Wachai, author of GMO Africa, posted an entry on the announcement that researchers in New Zealand have genetically modified an onion to not only be tear-free, but also be sweeter and healthier. Wachai writes that he is curious how the anti-GM activists will respond to this announcement, since the scientists did not insert a gene to accomplish this, but rather silenced one.
C.S. Prakash
No more teary onion, thanks to genetic engineering
GMO Africa
February 5, 2008
The blog, Rael the Prophet, reports on an article in the UK Telegraph about a research on a genetically engineered tear-free onion being collaboratively conducted by researchers from Japan and the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research. We’re all aware how teary an onion can be if mishandled when chopping. To men and women who spend considerable amounts of time cooking, this, definitely is news worth celebrating.
In addition to ridding onion of the gene that causes teary effects on our eyes, these researchers promise that this new variety will be sweeter and healthier.
What an exciting research? Indeed, it has generated quite a buzz. The journal Onion World, in its December edition, has featured this work, which is being piloted by Dr. Colin Eady. The popular environmental blog Environmental Grafita gleefully proclaims, GM onions means no more tears, with sarcasm:
Anti-GMO activists may soon be tearing up after a New Zealand company announced the development of a genetically modified tear free onion.
I can’t also wait to see their [anti-biotech activists] reactions. Instead of inserting a foreign gene into the onion, which has been the practice in crop genetic engineering, researchers in this project will be working to suppress the gene that makes onions teary.
Food Navigator published an article on the negative views still held by much of Europe on genetically modified organisms. The article quotes Natalie Moll, a director at Europabio, the European Association for Bioindustries several times throughout the article on such topics as the approval process in Europe, competition around the world, University research and bans in EU member states of GM crops.
C.S. Prakash
Fickle European GM policies stifle competition, say experts
Food Navigator
February 4, 2008
The unstable political situation surrounding the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is restricting university research and pushing small companies out of the arena, thereby restricting competition, said a GM expert.
Natalie Moll, a director at Europabio, the European Association for Bioindustries, told FoodNavigator.com: "The agricultural industry is lacking courageous people who are willing to take the chances in an area where the market is uncertain. Only big companies can survive."
As European member states struggle to agree on a biotech policy, with different countries applying their own bans and restrictions on GM research and cultivation, research and development is being sacrificed.
At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption, but for animal feed only.
GM crop cultivation is expanding in Europe, with over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops harvested in seven EU member states last year, representing a 77 per cent increase.
According to the UK’s Telegraph, there could be an onion that doesn’t make you cry when you slice it. Researchers in New Zealand and Japan are working on, and may have created an onion that does just that, and is healthier and tastier on top of it. Using RNA interference, scientists silenced the gene responsible for making you cry, redirecting into compounds responsible for flavor and health. While this won’t be available to consumers for a while, it is definitely something to look forward to!
C.S. Prakash
GM tear-free onion created by scientists
The Telegraph
February 1, 2008
A tear-free onion that should be tastier and healthier has been created by using genetic tinkering to turn off the enzyme that makes us cry.
The onions, which can be chopped without painful, stingy, weeping eyes, have been tested in the laboratory by New Zealand Crop & Food Research scientist Dr Colin Eady, with his collaborators in Japan.
"If the research progresses well, would like to see them become the household and industry norm within the next decade," says Dr Eady.
The research team has been unable to induce tearing by crushing their model tearless onions, which emerged from a discovery by Japanese scientists of the gene behind the tears. "When you slice the vegetable, it doesn't produce tears."
The key is not to introduce a foreign gene but to silence one using a phenomenon called RNA interference. By stopping sulphur compounds from being converted to the tearing agent and redirecting them into compounds responsible for flavour and health, the process could even improve the onion.
"We anticipate that the health and flavour profiles will actually be enhanced," Dr Eady says.
Reuters reported European Union regulators plan to take legal action against Poland soon if they continue their ban against the trading and planting of genetically modified seeds. The World Trade Organization ruled a couple years ago that this practice was against international trade practices, so hopefully the EU gets their act together soon.
C.S. Prakash
EU lawyers take action against Poland over GMO ban
Reuters
January 31, 2008
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union regulators launched legal action against Poland at Europe's highest court on Thursday for the country's move to ban the trade in and planting of genetically modified seeds, the EU executive said.
Poland's plans for what amounts to a national GMO ban, announced last year, quickly drew criticism from European Commission lawyers who routinely scrutinise any such proposals.
Earlier this month, they said it had no scientific justification. But Poland's insistence in proceeding with the ban, despite several warning letters sent from Brussels, meant the Commission now had to resort to legal action, it said.
"On the basis of the information provided by the Polish authorities in their replies to these letters, the Commission has no alternative but to refer Poland to the ECJ," it said, referring to the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice.
"In their reply, the Polish authorities confirm their intention to maintain the ban Polish authorities believe that the use of GM seeds encroaches on the sphere of public morality, an encroachment that would justify a total ban on GM seeds."
As tested on several previous occasions, the Commission takes the view that if a region wants to ban GMO crops or products, such restrictions must be scientifically justified and crop-specific to comply with EU law.
Reuters just posted an article reporting that U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab plans to crack down on the European Union. Schwab has pledged to “watch for proof” that the European Union is accelerating approval of new biotech products. While she is not saying when she plans to do it, she did say that she will ask the World Trade Organization to probe whether the EU is in violation if it’s ruling that the EU was “dragging its feet” on the approval of new genetically modified food and crops.
C.S. Prakash
USTR Schwab urges EU to hasten biotech approvals
Reuters
January 30, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab on Tuesday pledged to watch for proof that the European Union is accelerating approval of new biotech products and ending a delay that has been costly to U.S. exporters.
Schwab declined to specify how long she might be willing to wait before she would ask the World Trade Organization to probe whether the EU is in violation of its ruling that found the 27-member bloc dragged its feet for years in approving new genetically modified food and crops.
"We have been tremendously frustrated at the lack of progress on the biotechnology issue," Schwab, who discussed the issue last week with European officials, told reporters.
"We need to see some progress," she said.
Earlier this month, Schwab's office announced it would give the EU more time to speed up its approval process and comply with the ruling.
Agricultural biotechnology Web site Check Biotech posted a press release this week from Western Agricultural Insurance Company announcing it would begin offering farmers Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE). The BYE program provides farmers with a lower crop insurance premium when they plant at least 75 percent of their insured acres with approved biotech corn. This sounds like a great program!
C.S. Prakash
Biotech yield endorsement is good for America's corn growers
Check Biotech
January 29, 2008
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa - Western Agricultural Insurance Company and its affiliate, Crop1 Insurance Direct, Inc., are among the first in the nation to offer farmers the new Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE).
"The Biotech Yield Endorsement is really about innovation and doing what's right for America's farmers," said Bruce Trost, executive vice president of Western Agricultural Insurance Company. "BYE can help protect America's corn farmers against increasingly complex production risks, as well as reward them with a reduced crop insurance premium and higher yield. The BYE product is a significant improvement in crop insurance for corn growers because, given market conditions, there is unprecedented demand for higher and more stable corn production."
BYE is a pilot program available in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. Those four states account for more than 50 percent of the corn acres harvested for grain in the United States.
Approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and administered by the Risk Management Agency, BYE provides eligible farmers an opportunity to pay lower crop insurance premiums when they plant at least 75 percent of their insured acres within each insured unit to non-irrigated corn for grain qualifying hybrids that contain YieldGard VT Triple(TM) and/or YieldGard Plus(R) with Roundup Ready(R) Corn 2. Research, backed by three years of comprehensive data from thousands of field trials, confirms that Monsanto's YieldGard(R) Triple Technology reduces annual production risk and increases yield. Only YieldGard VT Triple(TM) and YieldGard Plus(R) with Roundup Ready(R) Corn 2 are eligible for a crop insurance premium discount offered to qualified producers who purchase the Biotech Yield Endorsement.
The Honolulu Star Bulletin published an editorial this week by Alika Napier, an agronomist for Pioneer Hi-Bred International in Waialua and secretary for the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association on the resistance to biotechnology in Hawaii. Napier uses the editorial to show residents the positive aspects of biotechnology. Read more below.
C.S. Prakash
Biotechnology moratoriums push an extreme agenda
Star-Bulletin
January 27, 2008
Jimmy Carter said, "Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is." Although he made the statement more than 10 years ago, this former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner recognized the zealousness of "extremist groups" whose thinking was "dangerously misguided." Still today, they refuse to accept the incredible potential for biotechnology to increase crop yields (to feed the world's growing population), resist diseases and insects (to reduce the need for chemical pesticides) and help crops withstand drought conditions (due to global warming). Instead, they confuse and paralyze communities with fear of the unknown.
Hawaii has now found itself awkwardly positioned as the center of the international biotechnology debate with the introduction of bills mandating moratoriums on the testing, propagating, cultivating, growing and raising of genetically engineered taro, as well as coffee. It's evident that this legislation is simply an attempt to hijack legitimate cultural concerns by people with a broader philosophical and anti-scientific agenda. Proponents have said: "Hopefully this moratorium will lead to not only a ban on GMO taro, but all GMOs in Hawaii and elsewhere."
A wide variety of diseases and pests as well as the choice by growers to cultivate certain varieties over others have caused the decline of Hawaiian taro from more than 400 varieties in the early 1900s to fewer than 60 today. Invasive species and diseases such as the taro leaf blight and the alomae and bobone viruses have wiped out taro production in Samoa and the Solomon Islands. Because Hawaii is an international port and imports 20 percent of the taro, invasive species and diseases have a high probability of finding their way here and severely affecting the taro industry. The destruction to the native wiliwili trees is an example of what could happen to the taro plants in Hawaii.
Taro could benefit from the use of all plant-breeding technologies, including biotechnology, if that is acceptable to the Hawaiian community. Individual farmers should have the right to choose the crops they prefer to grow, using the production methods that best fit their farming needs -- whether that's organic, conventional or genetic engineering practices. The tools of biotechnology have been chosen by farmers in the United States and around the world, and have been proven safe and compatible with other farming methods.
CBC News in Canada reported this week that there has been an increase in the number of genetically modified crops being grown on Prince Edward Island. Biotech sugar beats and corn have seen the largest increases.
C.S. Prakash
GMO crop use expanding on P.E.I.
CBC News
January 24, 2008
Hundreds more hectares of genetically modified crops will be grown on P.E.I. this year, a trend that could soon end any plan to make the province a GMO-free zone.
Daniel Martens of Lyndale in eastern P.E.I. is growing sugar beets: not for people to eat, but to create ethanol to replace gasoline in vehicles. Sugar beets are one of the fastest growing areas of GMO crop production on the Island.
Last summer there were about 16 hectares of genetically modified sugar beets grown on P.E.I. This spring, Martens said farmers hope to plant 1,400 hectares of GMO sugar beets. That could double in 2009. Martens argues it is the environmentally responsible thing to do, because it will mean less pesticide sprayed on the field.
"We're looking at about three to four applications of any kind of sprays," he said.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute published an op-ed co-authored by Gregory Conko and Henry I. Miller on the continued resistance by the European Union to force member countries to lift bans on genetically modified products. This resistance comes despite the fact that the World Trade Organization ruled in November 2005 that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the import of GM crops and food. Thanks for bringing this to people’s attention gentlemen! Europe needs to realize the value of biotechnology. Read the beginning of the op-ed below and follow the link to read the rest.
C.S. Prakash
Europe's Continued Hostility to GM Crops Runs Afoul of Science, WTO
Competitive Enterprise Institute
January 23, 2008
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom may have new leaders who bring the promise overall of better trans-Atlantic relations, but when it comes to the politics of global trade, some things never change. This month, the European Union missed yet another deadline for correcting its illegal regulation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified" (GM), crop varieties, following a World Trade Organization decision in November 2005 that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the import of GM foods and crops.
Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrцm, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."
The WTO also made clear that national bans on certain gene-spliced foods in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg were blatant violations both of those countries' treaty obligations and EU rules, but the European Commission has been impotent in persuading its rogue members to conform to EU policies. Not only are most of those national bans still in place but, in October 2007, French President Nicolas Sarkozy implemented a new moratorium on the commercial cultivation of gene-spliced corn.
The most important victory for the United States and its partners was the WTO's judgment that the European Commission failed to abide by its own regulations by "undue delaying" of approvals for 25 gene-spliced food products. The culprit here was (and is) the European Commission's highly politicized, sclerotic, two-stage approval process: Each application first must be cleared for marketing by various scientific panels, and then voted on by politicians, who routinely undo the scientific decisions.
As the WTO pointed out, the relevant EC scientific committees had recommended approval of all 25 product applications. But, for transparently political reasons rather than concerns about consumer health or environmental protection, EU politicians repeatedly refused to sign off on the final approvals.
The European Commission (EC) just ruled that Poland would not be allowed to continue to ban genetically modified crops already approved in the European Union. Poland had submitted a draft law that would restrict the planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to designated zones and place additional requirements on the use of GMO seeds. The article points out that the EC ruled this way because Poland did not present any new scientific evidence that would justify such a ban.
C.S. Prakash
Poland may not ban genetically modified plants
GMO Compass
January 23, 2008
Poland must allow the cultivation of genetically modified plants approved in the EU. The European Commission has rejected a draft law on genetically modified organisms (GMO) that would have restricted any plantings to designated zones and placed additional requirements on the use of GMO seeds. According to the Commission, Poland did not provide any new scientific evidence to justify the national measure in reference to the protection of the environment or the working environment. Consequently, the ban cannot be based on the "safeguard clause" foreseen in the EU law. Reports from Polish media indicate the willingness of the newly elected centre-right government to ease its stance over biotechnology.
In April 2007, Poland had notified the Commission of its plan to prohibit the planting of genetically modified plants by law. Any cultivation would be obliged to take place within designated zones. After application and the subsequent solicitation of the responsible municipal council, such zones could have been established by governmental decision. Comprehensive obligations also were foreseen in the case of a deliberate release for experimental purposes. The draft act foresaw a risk assessment and technical documentation, as well as written declarations of consent from neighbouring farmers. In rationalising such measures, the government made reference to the small structured agricultural land-use in Poland. The country has almost two million farms and the average area of a single farm is less than 8 hectares. Given this level of fragmentation, the isolation of GM from conventional and organic crops was assessed by the government as impossible.
Comparing the Polish act with the EU Directive on the deliberate release, the Commission concluded that the national measures are more restrictive. In accordance with EU law, experimental releases are not subject to the consent of any third party such as neighbouring farmers. Furthermore, without entitling any Member State to adopt a general ban of the cultivation or any other use of a genetically modified organism, the provisions of the EU Directive indicate that the cultivation of a GMO can be prohibited only on a case-by-case basis. Poland did not refer to new scientific studies, literature or other possible findings indicating new evidence concerning the protection of the environment or the working environment. The Commission's decision was dated as October 12th, 2007 but was not published in the Official Journal until Monday, 21th January, 2008.
The University of Queensland Australia ethicist Dr Lucy Carter jus released a new study which advises Australian states that they should not ban the commercial production of genetically modified crops. She writes that the benefits far outweigh the risks. GM crop field trials have taken place throughout Australia in every state except South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, with the first two states re-examining their moratoriums currently. Read more about this below.
C.S. Prakash
Benefits outweigh risks from genetically modified plants
The University of Queensland Australia
January 23, 2008
Australian states should not ban commercial production of genetically modified (GM) plants and food as the risks are alarmist and exaggerated, according to a new study.
The UQ PhD study found the benefits of GM plants and food outweighed the risks, finding no compelling evidence of harm to humans from GM plants.
GM plants have been trialled in most states with South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia the only states to ban GM plants. South Australia and Tasmania are reviewing their moratoriums.
The study author, ethicist Dr Lucy Carter, spent three-and-a-half years examining arguments and evidence for and against the development and use of GM plants and food in Australia and in the developing world.
Dr Carter said there was no evidence to justify continuing moratoriums on commercial GM planting so long as thorough risk assessments were done.
Opponents say GM products are unnatural, potentially harmful to humans and capable of environmental injury and creating 'superweeds'.
She said the risks of GM plants transferring allergenic proteins to novel foods or creating superweeds were very low.
Beverage Daily published this article on the use of genetically modified products in beer. The article quotes fellow biotech supporter Dr. Val Giddings throughout the article on his views on the subject. He believes that it will become a much more common practice in the near future. Read more below.
C.S. Prakash
Euro GM reluctance could hit beer innovation
Beverage Daily
January 22, 2008
As the EU debates retaining national bans on genetically modified (GM) crops, one industry expert believes that failure to adapt could grant foreign rivals using the technology an upper hand, not least in terms of brewing a good beer.
Dr Val Giddings, a leading independent US GM consultant, told BeverageDaily.com that the current use of biotech crops in global beer making was miniscule, mainly in the addition of rice.
He was keen to add though, that in his opinion, there could be no doubt that GM crop use in beer - even if still some way from practical application - is set to increase in the coming years.
One key issue expected to affect brewers in the coming year is the increasing costs of raw materials needed in making a variety of ales and lagers.
According to figures supplied by the UK-based cereal board HGCA, in England alone, the average price for brewers grain was up to £31 per tonne this month from £28 per tonne in January 2007.
Many experts say that this trend is likely to continue over the coming year.
While potentially helping to offset these cost, Giddings says that there could be numerous ways that GM crops could improve brewing, regardless of the current commodity price spikes.
I found this entry on fellow biotech blogger Dr. C Kameswara Rao’s blog the FBAE blog. In the post, he discusses the disappearance of bee colonies supposedly due to Bt crops. Take a look at it below, and also click on the link and read other entries in the blog.
C.S. Prakash
Bee Colony Collapse Disaster Was Not Caused by Bt Proteins
FBAE Blog
January 10, 2008
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org
http://www.fbae.org/Channels/Views/bee_colony_collapse_disaster_was.htm
Colony Collapse Disaster (CCD), the desertion and death of almost all the bees in a colony, occurs now and then, sometimes in epidemic proportions, in all countries resulting in 50 to 90 per cent losses. While several causes for CCD were identified, no specific reason or reliable remedies are known.
There was a collapse of Honey Bee colonies in the US and Europe in the middle of last year, causing enormous losses. The anti-Genetic Engineering (GE) activists were quick to attribute the CCD to the pollen of Bt crops, and used it vigorously in their campaign.
As there are several Bt transgenics in cultivation in the US, it is not odd to consider them as one of probable causes of the CCD. But in the case of the EU countries and elsewhere that argument is absurd, as there is a distinct lack of Bt pollen in the environment.
Poisoning by agricultural chemicals, unusually higher than normal winter damage and natural age dependent colony degeneration, are often confused with CCD.
A detailed write up by Christian Evans in News Target (March 2007) analyzed the various possible causes for last year’s bee colony disaster and considered that the heavy chemical inputs in modern agricultural practices as responsible for the problem.
Biotechnology is starting to gain more acceptance throughout the world according to the following London Times article. This is great news! Read more below.
C.S. Prakash
Frankenstein foods are not monsters
The London Times
January 09, 2008
All hail Doctor Frankenstein, maker of monsters. God is in retreat, skulking outside the laboratory while modern imitators of Mary Shelley’s mad boffin brew potions, splice genes and bring more new life forms into profitable being.
Ten years after the Prince of Wales accused genetic engineers of taking us into “realms that belong to God and God alone”, those who trespassed into the Kingdom of Heaven have emerged triumphant with a bag full of swag. Monsanto, the American corporation that brought us maize that makes its own pesticide, is thriving, rolling in cash, its stock price ascendant.
A decade ago, Europeans could sneer at genetically modified crops, deriding them as a US-food industry phenomenon, invented to service the food needs of America’s burger-chomping fatties and as attractive as mechanically recovered meat. While we sniffed in our bunkers, the seed barons were winning hearts, minds and stomachs in Asia and Latin America. By 2006, genetically modified crops were grown on more than 100 million hectares in 22 countries, with farmers in China and India clamouring for the seed. The driver is demographics, economics and plain old commerce. Food prices have soared, prompting government agencies to engage in panic buying of wheat. Land is becoming scarce as cities advance and companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta, its Swiss rival, make plants that repel predatory bugs and that use less herbicide. The promise for farmers is bigger yields at lower cost and, in a world that needs to feed an extra three billion people by 2050, the need is powerful.
These companies have won the commercial argument, making the right products at the right time, and have profited hugely. Syngenta’s share price surged by 50 per cent last year, while Monsanto’s grew by 140 per cent and the American company last week revealed that its net income in the first quarter had almost tripled to $256 million (£128 million). Its sales of seeds had risen by 23 per cent from the previous year because of soaring demand in Latin America, an astonishing achievement for a business that was almost on its knees in 2002, accused of poisoning the world for profit. So successful was the ideological assault against GM food that Zambia was persuaded to reject American food aid on the ground that it contained GM ingredients that might pollute Zambia’s biosphere.
The Guardian reported this week that Arcadia Biosciences will soon begin offering Chinese companies rewards for planting genetically modified crops. Arcadia plans to sell companies carbon credits, which can then be resold from cash, in exchange for plant GM crops. Read more about it below…
C.S. Prakash
Biotech Firm Plans To Fund GM Rice Crops With Carbon Credits
The London Times
January 08, 2007
Money paid by green consumers to offset their flights and by companies that go carbon-neutral will be used to fund the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops under plans drawn up by a US biotechnology company.
Arcadia Biosciences is working with the Chinese government to reward farmers in China that grow the firm's genetically modified (GM) rice, with carbon credits that they can sell for cash.
The credits would be sold on the global carbon trading market set up under the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which is used by governments, companies and individuals to offset their pollution. Arcadia plans to expand the Chinese scheme to more crops in other countries, including Britain.
Arcadia says its GM rice requires less nitrogen fertiliser, and so farmers that grow it will lower their emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Swapping global rice supply to the GM version, the company says, would save the equivalent of 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and generate 750m in carbon credits for farmers.
Eric Rey, the president and chief executive of the California-based Arcadia, told the Guardian: "A technology that allows farmers to participate in carbon credit markets will give agriculture a clear incentive to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. It's a way for farmers, and us, to make money, while doing something positive to help the environment."
World agriculture accounts for 17% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, more than the transport sector. Rey aims to have the Chinese scheme running by 2012, in time to take advantage of new carbon markets expected to be created by a successor treaty to Kyoto. The first steps towards such a treaty were taken at the UN climate meeting in Bali last month.
Cattle Network, a livestock industry new site, posted the following article by Dan Murphy on the goals of the agriculture community for 2008. The article includes an extensive list of agriculture organizations and their goals for the New Year. It’s quite long, but worth the read.
C.S. Prakash
New Year’s Goals For The Ag Community Focused On A Strong, Prosperous 2008
Cattle Network
7 January, 2008
As 2008 begins a critical year for all of agriculture, AgNetwork.com reviews the goals and priorities from a select group of advocacy groups and trade associations. Some of those are entirely predictable – such as lobbying for the most favorable version of the farm bill. Others center on policy, marketing of even educational goals.
All of the organizations below work hard at a variety of initiatives all aimed at strengthening various segments of agriculture, All deserve the support – monetary, as well as political – of their members and constituents.
But can we pause for a brief editorial comment? In contacting the organizations profiled here, too many had “designated spokespeople” solely empowered to discuss the group’s priorities. And if they were unavailable, media inquiries (of any sort) get shelved until such time as the spokesperson resurfaces.
That’s a missed opportunity, but more importantly it speaks to one of the most neglected aspects of running an organization that interfaces with the media: internal communications. When the folks answering the phones or responding to emails are unwilling or unable – doesn’t matter which – to verbalize the group’s mission, or its key goals, that’s a red flag.
Should receptionists be able to articulate a group’s top priorities? Yes. They’re your de facto spokespeople. Should office managers, entry-level staff, even temporary interns be aware of what they’re working for and to what mission their efforts are supposed to contribute? Absolutely.
Unfortunately, the mindset among some advocacy groups and trade associations – and I can say this because I’ve been there – is that we have spokespeople, and we have staff. The former are tasked with articulating the group’s goals; the rest of the organization is on a need-to-know basis.
And too often, it’s presumed that they don’t need to know.
Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference last week, the Chairman of the European Parliament agriculture committee, Neil Parish, encouraged farmers to embrace GM crops to help mitigate the effects of climate change, feed price and food security issues. Read the article below.
C.S. Prakash
Europe must ditch GM hang-up
Farmers Guardian
4 January, 2008
GENETICALLY modified crops must be encouraged into European agriculture if tough climate change, feed price and food security issues are to be mitigated.
That was the message from the Chairman of the European Parliament agriculture committee Neil Parish MEP when speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference this week.
“One of the problems Europe has got is its hang up over GM crops,” said Mr Parish.
“We need to wake up and smell the coffee. I think Monsanto now claim to have developed wheat and oil seed rape that needs around a third of the amount of nitrogen input than conventional crops.
“If these crops take off can you imagine Europe not taking advantage? When you think about the amount of energy needed to make artificial nitrogen, GM does seem to be one solution to our problem,” he said, adding that feed and food prices will be pushed up if the EU fails to take advantage of the new feed source.
During his address to delegates Mr Parish said that the 2008 ‘Health Check’ on the CAP will move agriculture closer to a market orientated system of agriculture. The Commission’s proposal on scrapping set-aside, abolishing milk quotas and compulsory modulation are all welcome as long as they fully maintain a level playing field for all farmers across the EU, he said.
Mr Parish praised the Commission for reducing the number of Brazilian holdings permitted to export beef to the EU but called for a complete ban on Brazilian beef imports over traceability and quality assurance concerns.
Great News! Australia’s agriculture minister, Tony Burke, is encouraging farmers to combat climate change with genetically modified crops. Australia endured a devastating drought last year, and while the government cannot force farmers to grow gm crops, they did say they may start encouraging it’s use. Read more about this below.
C.S Prakash
Australia looks to GM crops after scorching 2007
Check biotech
January 3, 2008
SYDNEY - Australia's agriculture minister on Thursday hailed genetically modified crops as a means to help farmers combat climate change, as data showed 2007 was the country's sixth hottest year on record.
Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said Australia's farmers needed to face up to climate change, foreshadowing major changes to drought relief payments worth billions of dollars.
Burke said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's recently-elected government wanted to improve farmers' ability to deal with climate change, rather than simply propping them up as they struggled through the worst drought in a century.
'What I don't want to see is situations where some people can go onto the system of relief and have no incentive during that time to actually improve the property to better deal with climate change,' Burke told commercial radio.
Questioned later on public radio about what farmers could do to help make their properties more drought-resistant, Burke said the center-left Labor government was considering genetically modified crops as a possible solution.
'There's some answers that may well be provided through genetically modified crops in different parts of the country,' he said.
'There'll be some places where there'll be specific water strategies, where there can be changes in ploughing methods.'
Read more…
The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) posted a new report on their Web site that found genetically modified crops pose no threat to the environment. GMO Africa blogger James Wachai just posted an entry on the report. Read more below.
C.S. Prakash
New study discounts GM crops gene flow theory
GMO Africa
December 16, 2007
There has been an explosive debate on the effects of genetically modified (GM) crops on human health and the environment. Critics, especially the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, have sought to cast GM crops as posing great threat to conventional farming methods. They contend that GM crops haven’t been tested enough and, therefore, threaten the environment and the health of consumers.
There are arguments out there, which haven’t been scientifically verified, that gene flow from GM crops can harm the environment. They have gained traction, courtesy of one or two reports affirming so, but which have been discredited by the scientific community. In 2002, for example, the journal Nature published an article that claimed genetically modified maize under field trials in Mexico had “contaminated” their conventional varieties. Anti-biotech groups celebrated the news, but one year later Nature backtracked on the report. In a statement, the journal said:
In the light of the criticisms and advice from referees, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify its publication of the original paper.
Since then, more and more research reports have been published that show the superficiality of the the so-called GM crops gene flow theory. Last week, for instance, researchers at the University of California - Davis, published a report that shows genes from GM crop plants pose no threat to the environment. The report by Kent Bradford and Pat Bailey appears on the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) web site. CAST is an international consortium of scientists and scientific organizations that promote public understanding of science and technology. A news article on this highly significant report is available on the UC Davis web site.
The biotechnology news site AgBios posted an article this week about Canadian farmers who found that they can earn more money (about $14 a hectare more) by planting GM canola instead of conventional or organic canola. Read the article below and let me know what you think.
C.S. Prakash
Canada GM canola growers $14/ha "better off"
AgBios
December 12, 2007
Canadian farmers are about $14 a hectare better off growing genetically modified canola, says Canola Council of Canada's chairman, Stew Gilroy. Mr Gilroy says the major drivers are lower input costs, especially herbicides, better weed management and better yields - up to 10pc better than conventional varieties available in Canada.
He says the lower costs and higher yields far outweigh the extra cost of the GM technology users agreement paid to the patent holders.
Growers in Canada are roughly split between Monsanto's glyphosate tolerant line and Bayer's glufosinate ammonium tolerant cultivar.
"There is no doubt these technologies offer easier and cheaper alternatives for weed control than conventional varieties," Mr Gilroy says.
He says the thorny issue of weed resistance had not been an issue in Canada. To date there have been no confirmed cases of glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium resistant weeds in the major production area of western Canada.
"The development of resistant weeds is certainly a concern but as we have seen with weeds that are resistant to other classes of chemistry, alternate management options can usually be developed," he says.
The University of California – Davis posted the following article to their Web site earlier. The article highlights a new report released by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). The research found that gene flow from genetically modified crop plants to their wild relatives will have little overall impact on human health or the environment.
C.S. Prakash
Report Says Gene Flow From GM Crops Not Likely to Harm Environment
The University of California – Davis
December 12, 2007
Gene flow from genetically modified crop plants to their wild relatives will have little overall impact on human health or the environment, predicts a team of researchers in a report released today by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.
Gene flow -- the movement of genes from one plant population to another -- has always occurred naturally but has drawn particular attention during the past 10 years, as genetically modified crop plants have moved into commercial production.
"Regulatory requirements and market standards that are specific to crops developed using biotechnology have resulted in much closer monitoring of gene flow than has been done in the past," said plant scientist Kent Bradford, a co-author of the report and director of UC Davis' Seed Biotechnology Center.
"After analyzing a wide range of crop-trait-location combinations, it was determined that relatively few of these combinations present the potential for gene flow to adversely affect the environment or human health," Bradford said. "Gene flow within a given crop can result in economic impacts for specific markets but these can be managed through proven strategies that make it possible for genetically modified crops and nonbiotech crops to co-exist."
David Tribe, a fellow blogger based in Australia posted a press release this week from Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. The biotechnology company announced that it has successfully completed its first drought tolerance technology field trial. They found that plants that were engineered for drought-tolerance achieved significantly higher yields than the control plants under induced-drought conditions, and similar yields under non-drought conditions. Check out the press release below.
C.S. Prakash
Drought tolerant crops from Arcadia Biosciences
GMO Pundit
December 11, 2007
Arcadia Biosciences, Inc., an agricultural technology company focused on products that benefit the environment and human health, today announced the successful completion of its first drought tolerance technology field trial. Results of the trial demonstrated that plants engineered for drought-tolerance achieved significantly higher yields than the control plants under induced-drought conditions, and similar yields under non-drought conditions.
Arcadia’s drought-tolerance program fits squarely with the company’s portfolio of agronomic traits – including nitrogen use efficiency and salt-tolerance – all of which promote production efficiency and benefit the environment. These traits also help reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint while enabling agricultural food production to adapt to climate change.
“Global warming and diminishing availability of fresh water resources are two of the most critical environmental issues our planet faces. Development of crops that can thrive using significantly less water can have a massive positive impact on food production as we wrestle with our growing global population, the reduction in available farmland, and a warming planet,” said Eric Rey, president and CEO of Arcadia. “This technology can also be combined with our Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Salt Tolerance technologies to create hardier plants while reducing environmental impacts.”
The drought-tolerant technology was developed by an international team of researchers and led by the University of California, Davis. The University of California has filed a patent application on this technology. The patent application is pending in the United States and in a number of foreign countries. The patent rights are covered by an exclusive arrangement between the University of California and Arcadia. Results from lab and greenhouse trials by the University of California, Davis were published in the November 27 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
Want to learn more about the benefits of genetically modified crops to small-scale, subsistence farmers in developing countries. Monsanto just issued this press release that links to a video on their Web site on this issue. Click on the link below for more information.
C.S. Prakash
Experts agree on need for GM crops in developing countries
Check Biotech
December 11, 2007
St. Louis, MO - In a new online video and podcast released today, eight globally recognized and distinguished experts discuss how GM crops are able to deliver significant benefits to small-scale, subsistence farming operations in developing countries and emphasize the need to expand the availability of this farming technology in these areas of the world.
“Here is a technology that is not only scale neutral, but delivers more benefits to the poor,” says Dr. Clive James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). “For example, in the U.S., you would expect, on average, to increase productivity by five percent. If you use Bt maize … in the Philippines, that increase is 40 percent.”
Economic research to date does not support the widely held perception that agricultural biotechnology benefits only large farms. A 2006 review of peer-reviewed research by Dr. Terri Raney, senior economist of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), summarizes that the technology may be “pro-poor,” and concludes that economic results to-date suggest that farmers in developing countries can benefit from transgenic crops.
“What they typically require is a kind of an empowering tool, which allows them to reduce uncertainties, get greater incomes, and also to be able to invest more in their own households, as well as on the farm. What biotechnology enables them is precisely this,” says Dr. Laveesh Bhandari, economist and director of Indicus Analytics in India, who recently studied the impact of this new technology in farming on households and communities in India.
I ran across a great article this weekend. Titled “Growing GM canola a smart move,” the author discusses the current debate in Australia surrounding genetically modified canola.
C.S. Prakash
Growing GM canola a smart move
The Grapevine
December 08, 2007
Last week, the State Government of Victoria announced that the five-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) canola would be lifted in early 2008. New South Wales has also announced that it will lift its ban. South Australia is expected to follow soon whilst Tasmania wants to maintain its prohibition. The lifting of the moratorium is a highly controversial decision, but one that I welcome.
This story goes back to 2003 when the Commonwealth Government’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved the cultivation of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor® and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus) for commercial oil production. In response, most Australian states (which have constitutional authority over agriculture) imposed 5-year moratoria on the basis that the economic and environmental risk was still unknown.
This was a sensible decision because it permitted more scientific and economic research to be conducted and for the community and farmers to express their concerns to government and industry.
Food Navigator
December 05, 2007
The genetically modified LLRice62 poses no evident harm to humans, animals or the environment, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
German chemicals company Bayer CropScience applied for the placing of the GM rice on the market for food and feed uses, but not for cultivation, in August 2004. Following extensive scientific assessment, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms has now released its opinion.
"LLRice62 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment in the context of its intended uses," said the report.
The European Commission will now put the decision on whether the rice will be made available on the European market in the hands of the relevant committee.
The genetic modification intends to provide tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.
The EFSA board concluded that the labelling proposal in the application is also in line with the EU requirements, saying that GM LLRice62 is compositionally and phenotypically equivalent to its non-genetic equivalent except for the introduced traits.
Spokesperson for Beyer, Annette Josten, told FoodNavigator.com: "We are pleased with the recent announcement. We believe that our herbicide-tolerant rice could contribute significantly to increasing rice productivity in certain global markets, both in terms of quality and yield."
Despite the opinion from EFSA, it may be some time before the rice appears on the market - if at all.
Adeline Farrelly, communications director at EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said that such decision-making processes can prove lengthy.
She said: "There are many products that have gained approval worldwide but that are still stuck in the European system. These are traders' crops and so the slow process causes problems for them and results in a shortage of supplies for Europe."
It is already approved for import and cultivation in the US and Canada, but has not been commercialised there.
The committees often have difficulties reaching a majority decision, as with the issue on the European Commission proposal to lift Austria's restrictions on the import and processing two types on GM maize - MON 810 and T25.
Continue reading "GM rice unlikely to pose health threats, says EFSA" »
Truth about Trade & Technology
December 05, 2007
NSW farmers will be able to grow genetically modified (GM) canola crops from March next year after the coalition supported the government's move to overturn a four-year ban on the practice.
But the NSW Greens, who opposed the amendment bill and tried to have it changed, have attacked The Nationals, saying the party had failed its own constituents.
Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald last week announced the government would overturn the ban imposed on GM canola crops in 2003.
An expert committee will also be established to assess whether the industry is prepared and capable of segregating GM and non-GM crops.
Mr Macdonald said the move was designed to give farmers a choice and the bill passed the upper house early on Wednesday with coalition support.
"A number of other groups have clearly supported the government's approach," Mr Macdonald told parliament.
"It has not only been a few of us to take this decision. The National Farmers' Federation has strongly supported the lifting of the moratorium in NSW and Victoria."
Opposition frontbench upper house MP Duncan Gay said the bill was sneaky but he had to support it as the ban on GM canola would expire on March 3 without the establishment of the expert committee.
"The sneaky part of this bill is that if members are opposed to GM, and do not want the moratorium to stop, they should be able to oppose the bill and that would happen," Mr Gay told parliament.
"However, if we oppose this bill, all that will happen is that on March 3 next year farmers in NSW will have carte blanche to do what they like, as is the situation in Victoria."
Greens MP Ian Cohen tried to have the moratorium extended until July 2011 and an amendment on strict liability that he said would shift the burden of responsibility of GM contamination onto biotech companies.
Both amendments were voted down, with the Greens failing to gain support from the opposition or the other minor parties.
Mr Cohen said that in not offering their support, the Nationals had failed farmers.
"It's a depressing sign of the times that the politicians elected to represent rural NSW have so utterly abandoned their own support base - the Nats have failed their core constituency," Mr Cohen said.
He said the introduction of GM canola crops would be a loss for farmers, consumers and the environment.
Source: Truth about Trade & Technology
Farmers Weekly Interactive
by Paul Spackman
December 02, 2007
Genetically Modified (GM) crops could be accepted across Europe in less than 10 years, despite the UK government’s “shameful” reluctance at present.
That was the prediction of Cranfield University’s Sean Rickard, speaking at the British Potato 2007 conference in Harrogate (28 November).
“Biotechnology is the next big technology driver in the world and the only way we can respond to the challenges of climate change is through GM. It is shameful of our government that we now lag behind the rest of the world.”
But the government had not dismissed the technology completely and public acceptance was increasing, he said. “In the next two or three years consumers will be prepared to experiment with GM. Once consumers and supermarkets stances’ change, things will move very quickly.”
The University of London’s Sir Colin Berry agreed. “Hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been eating GM crops for the best part of 15 years now, with no ill effects. Most questions have been answered and we’re ignoring a lot of positive things GM can offer.” The economic cost of not adopting GM technology had already been estimated at £2-3bn, but the UK had also lost much of its scientific expertise in this area to other non-European countries, he said.
Mr Rickard said the general public had an “irrational fear” of GM technology, whipped up by the media, and it was down to the farming industry and scientists to educate people about the benefits it could deliver. This was particularly relevant given a predicted 50% increase in world population by 2050, pressure to find alternatives to oil and the impact climate change could have on global cropping.
The growth in ‘ethical food’ such as organic and Fair Trade lines could prove to be a limiting factor in the uptake of GM food by consumers – in the short term at least. Premium markets are worth around £15bn per year and expected to grow to £20bn in five years time, which would outperform the broader grocery market, said IGD chief economist James Walton.
Some 83% of households bought something organic last year and the Fair Trade market alone was worth £250m per year.
“Until recently ethical food tended to be the preserve of hippies and eccentrics, but ethics have become mainstream and consumers are a lot more aware of the effects of their buying decisions.” Much of this had been driven by the media, he said. “Media interest in good eating has never been stronger. Suppliers have real potential to prosper.”
Crops that required little or no processing, such as dairy, eggs, fruit and vegetables, were most likely to be bought by ‘ethical shoppers’ as there was a clear association with the grower and land, he added.
Will the pressure to secure food supplies convince UK consumers to accept GM technology? Tell us what you think at www.fwi.co.uk.
Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive
Herald Sun (Australia)
Andrew Bolt
November 30, 2007
THE campaigners warning us we might end up with two heads after eating GM foods are ignoring the science that says it's good for you.
Let me prove how dead to reason are the state politicians now screaming that genetically modified crops could kill us.
These Greens and soy-milk Labor panic-merchants actually got their scientific advice from Jeffrey Smith.
Now there's a laugh -- or would be if it didn't confirm we're losing our minds. Unreason rules.
Smith, an activist and author of Seeds of Deception, was brought out from the United States to convince us Premier John Brumby was toying with our lives by deciding now to lift at last Victoria's ban on GM canola.
And how glad our greens, anti-capitalists and conspiracy-theorists were to hear him. In fact, he got the kind of reception we normally reserve for that other Profit of Doom, Al Gore.
The ABC gave him lots of air time, without expressing the slightest doubt about his evidence or credentials. Same story with The Age, which ran a typical Smith polemic.
"There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat", Smith roared. "Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans . . ."
In fact, GM corn had a gene that "if transferred from corn snacks, for example, it could turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories".
Gosh. Your guts turned into poison factories. Think of that.
Think also how useful to a professional alarmist like Smith are words like "if" and "could" -- especially when none of the millions of people who have snacked on GM food have found their stomachs actually converted into Mortein plants.
And think, too, what it says about Smith that he fails to add that the Food and Agricultural Organisation says the rat study he relies on "is unlikely to present a public health concern".
Yet the most astonishing part of Smith's visit was that he walked into Parliament House on Tuesday last week as the guest of anti-GM politicians who wanted a briefing on the science behind his scares.
What was so astonishing about that, you may ask? Astonishing is that Smith walked in, rather than floated.
Continue reading "Andrew Bolt: They're trying to scare you" »
GMO Africa
November 22, 2007
This week I revisit the relevance of GM crops to Africa’s agriculture. Two anti-biotech activists from South Africa prompt me to do so.
Andrew Taynton of South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE) and Dulcie Krige, a social scientist, claim GM crops aren’t the solution to food insecurity that bedevils Africa today. Writing in the Legal Brief, the two, in their article entitled, “Are GM crops the solution to Africa’s food problems?” argue food sustainability in Africa is possible without crop genetic engineering.
“…thousands of years of careful seed selection by African farmers has given rise to local varieties with valuable attributes such as drought and disease resistance,” they observe. To them, seed scientists can use a marriage of indigenous knowledge and modern technology to produce “…varieties which result in increased yields and disease resistance without running the risks associated with GM.”
Taynton and Krige identify Marker Assisted Systems (MAS) as one of the technologies that Africans must embrace in place of agricultural biotechnology. They argue it’s safe and cost effective. They even sneaked in a quote Jeff Cox, Monsanto’s Northern Europe, made in August 2002, to the effect that Marker Assisted Systems (MAS) could be used to boost crop yields, to bolster their argument.
The two take issue with GM crops out of concern that biotech companies’ sole interest is to patent seeds, then sell them to farmers at rooftop prices. Here, the obvious targets as usual are multinational biotech companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer. My question is, if the problem is corporate profiteering, why should Africa not see this as an opportunity to invest in GM seeds production? Africa has a galaxy of scientists who can make great marks in this field.
The debate on GM crops’ relevance to Africa is as old as the technology behind them. There are those, like Tayton and Krige, who believe GM crops have no role to play in Africa’s agriculture. There are others, like myself, who deride the argument that Africa must avoid GM crops at all costs. Other continents are practicing agricultural biotechnology, and so should Africa.
I agree GM crops might not solve all of Africa’s food problems, but they have a pivotal role to play to solve the problem. It would be an aberration to, even, declare GM crops the cure to global food problems.
Every technology, including crop genetic engineering, has a value to a particular segment of the society. Farmers who prefer Marker Assisted Systems technology, for instance, must be allowed to embrace it, while those for GM crops should be left to their own devices. There’s nothing like mutual exclusivity, where the adoption of one agricultural technology automatically excludes the other.
People must stop inciting African farmers against technologies, such as agricultural biotechnology, that might improve their bottom line.
Check Biotech
November 21, 2007
EAST LANSING - The percentage of genetically modified crops grown in Michigan is on the rise, and sugar beets are no exception. Michigan growers will begin planting Roundup Ready sugar beets, which can be sprayed with a non-selective herbicide without injury, in 2008.
Christy Sprague, crop and soil sciences professor at Michigan State University (MSU), is researching growing sugar beets in narrow rows as a way to manage weeds and increase yield.
Her findings will provide growers of Roundup Ready sugar beets with recommendations for timing of herbicide applications, effective weed control and maximum yield.
Weed control in sugar beets is critical, Sprague pointed out. In MSU trials, lack of weed control reduced sugar beet yields by 30 to 100 percent.
“The use of herbicide in combination with the Roundup Ready crops will provide good control over weeds,” Sprague said. “We want to come up with effective weed management options that all sugar beet growers can use.”
Sprague’s research goal is to reduce the number of weeds that grow in sugar beet fields by growing the beets in narrower rows, which will make them more competitive with weeds.
The narrower rows will allow the leaves of sugar beets to be closer together, preventing sunlight from reaching the ground and reducing weed germination, Sprague explained.
Along with better weed management, Sprague’s research aims at increasing yield by growing more sugar beets per acre while maintaining crop quality.
She will also study the effects on sugar beet yield and quality from planting at various rates.
“We want to see if adding a few more plants can maximize yield in the field,” Sprague said. “We also want to make sure that we would be producing more sugar in the beets. Even if the beets are heavy, their sugar content may still be low.”
Currently, most Michigan growers plant their sugar beets in 30-inch rows to allow space for cultivation between the rows throughout the season.
Roundup Ready sugar beets will need less cultivation, so narrower row spacings may be possible. Sprague is studying the differences between row widths of 30, 20 and 15 inches.
Growers will be able to learn more about Sprague’s research findings and how they can implement the resulting recommendations in the 2008 crop at Extension grower meetings this winter.
Continue reading "Research finding may help sugar beet growers reap sweeter return" »
Check Biotech
November 20, 2007
A leading CSIRO scientist says there is no reason to fear that future gene technology will threaten food safety. Deputy chief of plant industry research, Dr TJ Higgins, says consumers have been using oil from genetically modified cotton for the past 10 years.
The Northern Territory Government banned the growing of genetically modified cotton in 2003 due to community concern.
But Dr Higgins says genetically modified cotton uses at least 85 per cent less pesticide than normal cotton.
He says the community is recognising the role gene technology can play in slashing the environmental footprint of agricultural production.
"It is controversial but I noticed on the surveys that are being done now that consumers are much more accepting of the technology," he said.
"They see it as providing certainty to some of the manmade problems that have occurred.
"I see a change in both consumers' attitudes and farmers' attitudes to technology. It is now a lot more acceptable."
Strict regulations
Dr Higgins says there are many other popular genetically modified foods, and strict regulations protect consumer food safety.
"Most of our fish and chips that we eat in fact are cooked in the oil from cotton seed," he said.
"So we already do and have been consuming food from genetically modified cotton.
"The regulator has also approved 33 other foods for consumption.
"So there are already many products that are in the food chain that we have been consuming safely."
Dr Higgins says genetic modification could revolutionise tropical fruit industries such as mangoes, Asian vegetables and livestock production.
"Gene technology could play a major role in the Territory in terms of improving animal breeding, or even in terms of crop production like vegetables and fruit trees," he said.
"This is a technology that can be applied in the Territory and can enhance the Territories reputation as a producer of affordable and safe food."
Source: Check Biotech
AgBios
By Alok Jha
November 16, 2007
Genetically modified plants which produce essential omega-3 fish oils could be the only way to ensure people get enough of these nutrients, according to a major EU-funded study. The plants, which would be used as feed for farm animals, could increase omega-3 in human diets without adding to pressure on rapidly declining fish stocks.
Long-chain fatty acids called EPA and DHA, found mainly in oily fish such as tuna, salmon and mackerel, can give protection against cardiovascular diseases and slow mental decline in elderly people and are essential for the healthy development of a baby's brain in the womb.
Experts recommend that we eat about 450mg of omega-3 oils every day, but most adults manage barely half that amount. Among teenagers, the figure drops to just 100mg a day. Low-income families get about 50mg a day less than average. To address the health problems that could result from a lack of these essential fatty acids, a five-year EU-funded project called Lipgene brought together almost 200 scientists and economists to look for ways to increase the levels of the oils in people's diets. An analysis carried out for the project found that the costs of increasing omega-3 consumption across Europe would be paid back many times over in reduced healthcare costs.
Ian Givens, of the University of Reading, one of the Lipgene scientists, said that part of the answer lay in increasing omega-3 fish oils in popular foods. Only 30% of Britons regularly eat oily fish, but 80% eat poultry. "The target we set ourselves was for a 200g portion of meat to contain 300mg of EPA and DPA together - we've achieved that. If that strategy was adopted on a widespread basis, that poultry meat in the amounts it's currently consumed would provide the population with 120-130mg a day."
Givens increased the omega-3 levels in his chickens by adding the oils, taken from fish, to their feed. However, this method may not be sustainable given the depletion of fish stocks around the world.
Johnathan Napier, of Rothamsted Research Institute in Hertfordshire, said that the only sustainable way to increase omega-3 in people's diets was to turn to GM technology. "There are no naturally occurring plant species that have the capacity to synthesise these long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which is why we have to take the GM route - there is no alternative."
EPA and DHA are normally made by microscopic marine algae which are then eaten by small fish, passing the fatty acids into the food chain. Napier took genes from algae and inserted them into linseed and oilseed rape crops so that these produced the oils. The GM plants can be used as feed for chickens or other animals. Napier said that fields of GM crops for animal feed could be grown within five years.
Another advantage would be a source of fish oils free from mercury contamination. The scientists said concerns among the public about GM crops would need to be addressed, but Givens was confident of support. "When the issues about sustainability of fish oils and the worldwide picture becomes clearer, and also when people are able to see what the benefits to them are, I suspect mindsets will change."
Napier said that environmentalists would need to consider the sustainability aspect. "If you're reducing the pressure on natural fish stocks, that's got to be a benefit. You can't always be a nay-sayer, you've got to come up with a positive solution."
Source: AgBios
Truth about Trade & Technology
By Terry Wanzek
November 16, 2007
The drought now choking the Southeastern United States is a slow-motion natural disaster. Officials in Atlanta say they could run out of water by January. The governor of Georgia is asking for prayers. “The only solution is rain,” says his spokesman. “And the only place we get that is from a higher power.”
Farmers understand the threat of drought. It’s one of our biggest fears, partly because we have no control over it. You can be the best farmer in the world, but if the skies don’t release rain, nothing will grow.
The problem afflicting Georgia and its neighbors is severe--the worst drought in a century, say the experts. Other parts of the world are experiencing their own problems. In Australia, farmers are in the seventh year of the worst drought that anyone Down Under can recall. They’re calling it the “Big Dry.”
There won’t ever come a time when crops won’t need water. But if biotechnology is allowed to reach its full potential, there may come a time when crops need less water than they do now. Drought-resistant crops are on the scientific horizon. They can become a reality soon--but only if we make a determined effort to develop them.
In truth, biotechnology already has improved the ability of crops to survive dry spells. Herbicide-resistant plants prevent the growth of weeds, which suck moisture from our fields. As a result, these biotech-derived plants can get by with a bit less access to water than the crops of just a generation ago.
What’s more, because GM crops make it possible to farm without constant plowing, our fields don’t suffer from nearly as much soil erosion as they once did. If my ancestors had access to the same crop technologies that I use today, they might not have suffered from the Dust Bowl catastrophes of the 1930s, when dust storms aggravated drought conditions and led to what may be the worst decade in the history of American agriculture.
That period generated at least one great work of literature--The Grapes of Wrath--but it also produced untold suffering in the heartland. Biotechnology virtually guarantees that there won’t be a sequel to John Steinbeck’s famous book.
ABC Rural
November 13, 2007
One of the world's leading wheat breeders believes GM crops are not only safe, but hold the key to helping farmers cope with drought conditions and global warming.
Ian Edwards has worked as a plant breeder and genetic researcher for 42 years and says he is fed up having to de-bunk myths put forward by anti-GM lobbyists.
Dr Edwards wants governments to get behind GM technology, so it can be used to help farmers make money and look after the environment.
"Frankly genes for drought tolerance in our crops are going to become vital to us here in Australia," he says.
"We have a real salinity problem and GM has some very real options in salt tolerance.
"These are the kinds of things we are going to see a lot more of and in fact the environment is a major concern and actually it's also one of the major reasons for a change in public opinion attitudes significantly over the last year".
Source: ABC Rural
Truth about Trade & Technology
By Dean Kleckner
October 26, 2007
Reuters
By Carey Gillam
October 23, 2007
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct 23 (Reuters) - The time is right for a renewed push for biotech wheat, leading U.S. wheat industry players said this week, as tight world wheat supplies and high prices underscore strong global demand for the key food crop.
"We in the wheat industry are wanting to re-engage. We sure see the need for that technology," said Joseph Kejr, chairman of the joint biotechnology committee of the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat to the world.
"The technology has been good for other commodities, cheapening production and increasing yields," Kejr said. "We need to be able to hurry up the process for wheat."
U.S. wheat prices have soared to historic high levels in the past few weeks, with futures prices nearing $10 a bushel, up from about $4.50 a year ago. The price hike is tied to crop shortfalls in many key producing nations, which has triggered a scramble around the world for adequate supplies of the bread-making grain.
Wheat industry players say they have warned for years that wheat acres were in decline because a lack of technology to deal with troubling weather, weeds and disease. And years of reluctance by wheat buyers to embrace genetically modified wheat has made any immediate help impossible, say technology providers.
There are still many hurdles to acceptance of biotech wheat, but industry leaders expressed fresh hope that the current squeeze can generate acceptance for gene technology that could make wheat more profitable for farmers to grow and thus more plentiful.
"Maybe the world will be more accepting of biotech wheat now," said Darrell Hanavan, executive director of the Colorado Wheat Growers Association and past chairman of the biotech wheat committee. "The world situation is very tight."
Continue reading "Time is right for biotech wheat - U.S. growers" »
Check Biotech
By Hans Pienaar
October 22, 2007
Trials for a new drought-resistant gene to be used in genetically modified crops will start next month in various locations in South Africa, according to seed producers Monsanto. The news comes as Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk warned in parliament that climate change would lead to a 20 percent reduction in the maize crop over the next 25 years.
Kobus Steenkamp, biotechnology manager of Monsanto in South Africa, said during a visit arranged for the media to Monsanto's experimental farm near Malelane in Mpumalangaa that the company had been granted permission to locally start testing the "drought-gene" developed in United States laboratories.
According to Monsanto's calculations, 30 percent of maize in SA is at risk of failing because of drought - by far the most important factor in crop failures.
The "drought tolerance product" causes maize plants to make more efficient use of the water they get, as well as to "tolerate" the absence of water.
At first, the gene will be bred into maize lines, but drought-tolerant soybeans and cotton are expected to be on the market "early in the next decade".
Proud Monsanto managers said over 55 percent of all maize planted for the next harvest will be genetically modified (GM). Their projections show that this will soon shoot up to 75 percent.
"This is the single technology that is reshaping agriculture and industry and revolutionising medicine," said a press release.
Steenkamp rejected claims that GM foods were harmful to human health.
"I have been eating GM 'mieliepap' for years, and there is nothing wrong with me," he said.
Continue reading "Drought-resistant maize trials to start soon in South Africa" »
GMO Pundit
Philip Hopkins
October 19, 2007
A group of farmers is, according to this story, seeking to develop frost-resistant, genetically modified wheat using a gene from Antarctica. The Molecular Plant Breeding Co-operative Research Centre will conduct the research for the farmers, who have formed a company, Green Blueprint International. GBI has lodged a prospectus to raise $2 million to fund the research.
The story says that the partners aim to develop frost-resistant wheat varieties using a gene from Antarctic hairgrass and explain that the frost-tolerant gene creates a protein that inhibits icy crystal growth in the plant.
Chief executive of the Molecular Plant Breeding CRC Glenn Tong was cited as saying genes for these ice recrystallisation proteins were not unique to Antarctic hairgrass and were also in wheat and barley, but researchers hoped the Antarctic genes would lead to better ice crystal inhibition.
West Australian farmer John Stone said 75 farmers were already part of the scheme, which aimed to have 100 investors contribute about $20,000 each.
Source: GMO Pundit
Biotechnology Market News
October 19, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles O. Holliday, Jr., today told participants at the World Food Prize that biotechnology will enable the world to keep pace with the rapid growth in global demand for food, feed, fuel and materials.
"Biotechnology is the most powerful tool available to secure a safe, sustainable food and energy future," Holliday said. "It holds the promise to deliver the world more, higher quality grain with less environmental impact."
The World Food Prize is the foremost international award recognizing the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.
Holliday said, "Global population growth is driving increased demand not only for food but also for renewable energy and materials, for greater safety and security, and for increased connectivity." Holliday said that as a market-driven science company, DuPont is working on solutions to meet needs in all of those areas. He underscored that DuPont science includes capabilities in chemistry and biology, as well as in emerging fields such as nanotechnology.
"In the process, DuPont will maintain its strong commitment to sustainability," Holliday said, outlining DuPont's 2015 sustainability goals which encompass market-facing objectives - such as increasing the number of environmentally smart products from research and development - as well as continuing the company's progress in reducing the environmental footprint of its products and operations.
Holliday said that DuPont is using biotechnology to improve farmer productivity and profitability, increase grain quality and yield and enhance biofuels production. "The DuPont research pipeline is full of biotech traits that will increase yields, enhance nutrition, improve biofuels production, tolerate drought and require less nitrogen," he said.
He noted that plant biotechnology has been adopted faster than any other technology in the history of agriculture. "Farmers around the world have recognized the significant value of biotechnology and have adopted its use at an amazing pace," Holliday said.
DuPont also is developing new technologies for the growing renewable fuels market, such as improving biofuels production through improved seed and crop protection products; developing new technologies to allow conversion of cellulose to biofuels; and developing next-generation biofuels.
DuPont is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.
DuPont
CONTACT: Doyle Karr of DuPont, 1-515-270-3428,
doyle.a.karr-1@usa.dupont.com
Web site: http://www.dupont.com/
Source: Biotechnology Market News
AgBios
By Gil Gullickson
October 18, 2007
Soybeans were first on the traits bandwagon when industry introduced glyphosate-tolerant soybeans in 1996.
"We live in a glyphosate-tolerant world," says Gene Kassmeyer, head of Syngenta's soybean product line. "Sales of non-glyphosate tolerant soybean varieties are less than two percent."
Corn quickly surpassed soybeans with traits resistant to glyphosate, European corn borer and corn rootworm. Now, traits are swinging back to soybeans' corner.
Kassmeyer recently visited with Agriculture Online about several soybean traits and new developments that are on deck in the next few years. They include:
Syngenta is not alone in developing new weed control technology. Pioneer Hi-Bred International and its parent company, DuPont, plans to launch its alternative glyphosate technology, Optimum GAT. in soybeans in 2009 and corn in 2010. BASF recently announced that it is aims to register BAS 800H, a corn and soybean herbicide with a new mode of action, in the United States by 2009 or 2010.
Syngenta plans to continue to bring varieties to market each year with improved resistance to all major soybean diseases, especially Sudden Death Syndrome. Other maladies include iron chlorosis, white mold, and phytophthora root rot. Syngenta also plans to launch a variety with Asian rust tolerance by 2012.
The industry is also focused on output traits aimed at consumers. Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Monsanto have had low-linolenic varieties on the market for several years. These soybeans contain low amounts of linolenic acid. These types of soybeans can reduce or eliminate transfatty acids in foods by replacing hydrogenated oils. Transfatty acids have been linked to obesity and heart disease.
Syngenta aims to launch ultra-low linolenic soybeans in 2009. These soybeans contain less than one percent linolenic acid.
Seed costs will increase
All this means rising seed costs. "The retail price for beans today is in the mid-$30s (per bag) to the upper $30s before discounts," says Kassmeyer. "In the pre-glyphosate days, seed costs were $12 to $15 per bag."
Although this might pain your pocketbook, there's an upside in that it forces farmers and seed dealers to think more about soybean variety selection and inputs to protect those varieties.
"It used to be you'd spend quite a few hours selling corn hybrids, and maybe 10 minutes selling three pallets of beans," says Kassmeyer.
No more. Now, the increasing emphasis on traits and complex breeding techniques is prompting farmers to look more closely at soybean variety selection, he says. It's a way of boosting production so soybeans can stay competitive with corn when it comes to planted acreage. The biofuels market will continue to pressure soybean acres, he adds.
"The real dilemma in soybeans is how to get more production out of each acre," says Kassmeyer. Syngenta aims to meet this dilemma through its genetics, traits, and crop protection products, he adds.
Source: AgBios
Check Biotech
By Fabienne Heimgartner
October 16, 2007
Almost everyone has heard of, or experienced, the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Now a laboratory at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia has described a plant- derived protein, which could soon be used as an anti- cancer vaccine, thus reducing the number of people who would need chemotherapy.
Scientists in the group around Dr. Hilary Koprowski at the Biotechnology Foundation Laboratories at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia produced a plant-derived, colorectal cancer antigen, which is a substance that the human body recognizes as foreign and thus triggers an immune response.
Dr. Koprowski's team inserted the genetic information that can produce the antigen into tobacco plants. The plants in turn generated colorectal antigen (EpCAM) in large quantities just like an assembly line ("Plant-derived EpCAM antigen induces protective anti-cancer response" Cancer Imunollogy and Immunotherapy 2007).
To see if these plant-derived proteins could elicit an immune response, Dr. Koprowksi's group then injected EpCAM into mice. All of them reacted with the production of EpCAM-specific antibodies, which could be detected in the serum.
To go one step further, the scientists grafted colorectal cancer cells into a mouse that does not contain an immune system, called a nude mouse. Since nude mice do not posses immune cells, the researchers subsequently injected them with immune cells capable of producing antibodies to EpCAM. The serum took over the job of the immune system, and indeed inhibited the growth of the cancer cells.
Until now, antibodies were mainly produced in mice or microbial systems, but the data obtained by Dr. Koprowski's team show that plant-derived antibodies are as good as antibodies produced in animal cells.
From an economic perspective, the use of plant biotechnology has clear advantages when compared to mammalian technology such as, very high production levels and low investment. Plus, plants offer a more environmentally friendly production method because they can help reduce greenhouse emissions.
Taken together, Dr. Koprowski's work indicates that plants could be an important and promising tool to produce antibodies for anti-cancer vaccination. If enough funding and support is acquired to run clinical trials on the vaccine, one day, it might be possible to receive a prescription for an anti-cancer vaccine.
Fabienne Heimgartner is a Science Journalist for ACCESS! and is currently gaining her first work experience as a biologist.
f_heimgartner@yahoo.de
Contact
Prof. Hilary Koprowski
Department of Cancer Biology
Jefferson Medical College
Thomas Jefferson University
233 South 10th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
United States
Phone: (215) 503-4761
Hillary.Koprowski@mail.tju.edu
Publication
Brodzik et al. Plant-derived EpCAM antigen induces protective anti-cancer response. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, published online July 19th 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/30j54p613218rk65/
Source: Check Biotech
Farmers Weekly Interactive
By Mike Abram
October 16, 2007
Opposition to biotechnology, agrochemicals and genetic modification will threaten the ability to feed an ever-increasing global population, the president of the British Crop Production Council has warned on the opening day of the organisation's congress.
In his opening address, Hugh Oliver-Bellasis suggested antipathy towards modern technology could lead to “modern starvation”.
“During the past 10 years, consumption has quite often been greater than production; that is most unwise when the world demand grows year on year.”
Without biotechnology, agrochemicals and genetic modification, the ability to produce more would evaporate quickly, he said.
“The solution won’t be easy, but we have to convince policy makers that there is a political issue to be addressed as well as a practical one.”
Political pressure on crop production was increasing, he pointed out.
“Next week, the European Parliament will consider new legislation that will further impede pesticide approvals – by basing them not on real risk but on potential hazards. This could seriously affect European farmers’ day-to-day production. We must protect our ability to defend against pests and disease. If we do not we will legalise modern starvation.”
The congress should aim to set an agenda and an action plan to address politicians and other key influencers, he stressed.
Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive
The American
By Patrick Moore
October 12, 2007
By embracing genetically modified ‘golden rice,’ says Greenpeace co-founder PATRICK MOORE, the world can help millions of people in developing countries.
It’s been seven years since a Swiss research team demonstrated that genetically enhanced “golden rice” could help prevent vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which is responsible for roughly half a million cases of childhood blindness in developing countries each year. Indeed, golden rice was created by a German scientist named Ingo Potrykus to solve just this problem. Unfortunately, a number of activist groups such as Greenpeace have mounted public campaigns against it, trafficking in scare tactics and misinformation. As World Food Day (October 16th) approaches, we must renew our commitment to making available a food product that could vastly improve people’s lives and prevent thousands of needless deaths.
Unlike other rice plants, golden rice produces beta-carotene in its seeds, through genetics that Potrykus and his team imported from corn. Beta-carotene is the precursor of vitamin A, which is crucial for vision and disease resistance. Yet Greenpeace insists that the unknown future consequences for human health and the environment make golden rice too risky. (Never mind the half million children who go blind every year as a result of VAD.)
I am often asked why I broke ranks with Greenpeace after co-founding the group in 1971 and then spending 15 years in its leadership as a full-time environmental activist. One of the main reasons was that by the mid-1980s the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of scare tactics and sensationalism.
At the same time, I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development, which takes environmental ideas and incorporates them into the traditional social and economic values that govern public policy and our daily behavior.
Every morning, six billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy, and materials. The challenge is to provide for these needs in ways that reduce our negative impact on the environment, are socially acceptable, and are technically and economically feasible. I came to believe that seeking consensus among environmentalists, the government, industry, and academia was essential for sustainability.
But not all my former colleagues saw things that way. Many environmentalists rejected consensus politics and sustainable development in favor of continued confrontation, ever-increasing extremism, and left-wing politics.
YouTube
October 4, 2007
Click here to watch this video advertisement posted on YouTube, promoting biotechnology and produced by the Council for Biotechnology Information. The video explains what biotechnology is and how it helps farmers “feed a hungry world.”
Check Biotech
By Owino Opondo
October 04, 2007
NAIROBI - Genetically modified foods could soon become part of Kenya's national menu, if President Kibaki enacts a Bill whose debate Parliament began yesterday. Locally grown bananas. GM foods could soon be part of our menu if the bill in Parliament becomes law.
The proposed law provides for legal and scientific infrastructures to regulate modification of genetic organisms and to enable the country to reap from the benefits of biotechnology.
MPs who spoke during debate on the Biosafety Bill were united in celebrating the economic benefits of science.
It was time, they said, the Government borrowed a leaf from South Africa and Burkina Faso, which are among Third World countries that are reaping from biotechnology and the scramble for seeds.
Describing the Bill as a piece of legislation whose time had come, the MPs poured cold water on some civil society organisations they claimed were hell-bent on discouraging legalisation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), even at a time when the country was spending billions of shillings to import food.
Initiating debate on the Bill on Tuesday, Science and Technology minister Noah Wekesa said modification of genetic organisms and products urgently required a legal regime within which to operate.MPs heard that Kenya needed to pass the Biosafety Bill to domesticate the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol, to which the country is a signatory. The Bill was seconded by Kaiti member Gideon Ndambuki (Kanu).
The Bill seeks to facilitate responsible research into, and minimise the risks of harm that may be posed by GMOs. It also aims at ensuring adequate level of protection for the safe transfer, handling and use of the organisms.
Among other things, the Bill proposes the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority to supervise GMO research and provide regulations to ward off profiteering at the expense of human lives.
Source: Check Biotech
Check Biotech
By Allen V. Estabillo
October 04, 2007
BANGA, Philippines – For an ordinary farmer, only a miracle can make a corn plant survive for almost a month under an unusually intense heat and without a single drop of water.
But a scientific breakthrough practically made that history after local farmers here witnessed for themselves how a new corn variety developed by a local biotechnology company was able to survive a drought for 29 straight days.
"It's both a miracle and a genetic breakthrough. It's just timely to have this new weapon when our worst fears about global warming are unfolding before us," said plant scientist Dr. Antonio Mercado.
Mercado, a University of Philippines Los Banos (UPLB)-trained plant breeder, spent almost five decades collecting various corn varieties available in the planet on his quest of a perfect genetic base for his pet project.
After 10 years of continuous research, Mercado finally cracked the right genetic make-up for probably the first drought-resistant corn variety in the world. Mercado's own biotechnology firm ACM genetics eventually launched Gloria I Socialized Hybrid Corn Seed, which has been dubbed as "the answer" to the worsening effects of global warming in the country.
Mercado personally named the new corn variety "Gloria" in honor of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Despite lacking enough financial backup and working by himself, Mercado still managed to launch his project a decade ago at his farm in barangay Reyes here. He squeezed his own savings in order to put up his own corn gene bank and a small research station.
Mercado said he started his research by studying the genetic traits of some of the corn genes that he had collected from his travels to various parts of the world. He eventually developed Gloria variety out of a broad genetic base, primarily from corn varieties in Mexico, Thailand and UPLB.
"Its parent gene is from diverse origins and I carefully selected them out of the traits that are needed for a heat-tolerant variety," he said.
Mercado has tested the Gloria variety in Bukidnon, Wao in Lanao del Sur, North Cotabato, Sarangani and Isabela and the results turned out favorable.
"It's tested and proven to thrive in both wet and dry seasons in any part of the country," he said.
Early this year, ACM Genetics started the commercial distribution of the product at a price much lower to other branded hybrid varieties.
A bag of the Gloria corn variety, which is just enough for a hectare of farmland, has approximately 65,000 seeds and costs at least P1,700 only.
Owing to Mercado's successful research, the local government has invested on establishing its own gene bank in a bid to develop more hybrid corn varieties in the future.
The investment is in line with the efforts of Banga Mayor Isidro Janita to develop this once sleepy municipality into a "corn-based agri-industrial center in the south" and eventually the country's corncapital.
Source: Check Biotech
Reuters
By Sybille de La Hamaide
October 03, 2007
PARIS (Reuters) - France risks losing its seat among top food producers if it rejects genetically modified (GMO) crops altogether in an upcoming law on biotech organisms, French farmers and producers said on Wednesday.
Orama, the lobby gathering French grain and oilseed growers, joined by seedmakers and several politicians, warned against "peddlers of fear" which fight against the use of GMO at a time when most other big producers adopt the technology.
The call is part of a wide government-led debate on the future of France's environment policy during which the fate of GMOs in the country has been a subject of heated discussions.
France and many other European countries, pressured by reluctant consumers, has long opposed a widespread use of GMO crops, contrary to other big producers such as the United States which has a far higher take-up of GMO technology.
"Today there are 102 million hectares sown with GMO seeds around the world. What we fear is that if France rejects GMOs we will be left behind and be dependent on other countries technology," said Orama's president Philippe Pinta.
"If we discourage research we doom our future," he added.
French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said last month that the government wanted to continue allowing laboratory research on GMOs but envisaged to ban both the sale and cultivation of GMO crops.
The idea was welcomed by green groups, opposed to the technology they say could prove dangerous to human health, but it was widely criticized by farmers who say France needs to keep up research, which also implies field tests.
"If we want to fight against the U.S. domination we have to give ourselves the means to do so," said Jean-Yves Le Deaut, head of a parliamentary commission on GMOs.
Under pressure from skepticism among ordinary consumers towards biotech foods -- polls show that between 75 and 80 percent are opposed to GMOs -- France has only granted approval for one type of GMO crop, produced by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, to be cultivated for commercial purposes.
So far, just 22,000 hectares -- 1.5 percent of France's cultivated land -- have been sown with GMO maize this year.
Farmers also stress a contradiction between banning production and/or research on biotech crops and allowing the import of food products that contain GMOs.
"The French will end up being the laughing stock because they'll be eating what they refuse allowing their farmers to grow," said Christian Pees, president of France's seedmakers group Euralis.
Source: Reuters
Check Biotech
October 02, 2007
Genetically modified crops could be good for the health of insects if they lead to a reduced use of chemicals. An international bee conference has heard pesticides and herbicides are the biggest threat to insects like bees and more research should be done on the benefits and risks of GMOs.
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries' Doug Sommerville says while European trials show GMO5 are bad for bees, there are contradicting results in Australia.
"We're actually looking at increasing the window of opportunity of putting bees on cotton crops in northern NSW because of GMOs," he said.
"Because of the reduced amount of insecticidal use in the crop, it may offer the opportunity for bees to be moved into that crop and increase the seed yield, or the crop yield, with the honeybee pollination aspect and bees may actually get a box of honey out of it."
Source: Check Biotech
Check Biotech
October 01, 2007
CEBU, Philippines - The Department of Agriculture (DA) says that genetically modified (GM) products have been scientifically proven to be safe to the consumers and to the environment contrary to fears raised by some environmentalists.
Dr. Saturnina Halos, chief of the DA-Biotech Advisory Team (DA-BAT) assured the consumers that all GMOs that are approved for commercial release whether for food, feed or processing are safe and do not pose health risks to both the consumers and the environment
Halos explained that all GM products were subjected to a rigorous science-based safety assessment and the most stringent biosafety regulations by competent authorities and experts to make sure that they are safe and do not have harmful effects to the users and the environment.
Halos added that all GMO applications have to pass through a wringer comprised of several layers of assessments from independent scientists, all of whom are accorded the time to check on the organisms, report their findings and subject the GM products to repeated tests for toxicity and impact on indigenous plants and animals.
Apart from the safety assessment by experts from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and other regulatory agencies of the DA, the Scientific Technical Review Panel (STRP), an independent scientific body, also evaluates the GMO applications, the DA-BAT said.
She also noted that safety protocol followed by the Philippines competes with the system operating in the European Union (EU), which has the strictest scientific regulations as far as GMOs are concerned.
To prove her claim, Halos said none of the 44 GMO products approved by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) since December 2002 has caused any ailment among the farmers who planted them and the people who consumed them. The first GMO to be approved for commercial release in the Philippines in December 2002 was the pest-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn, which is now cultivated all over the country.
"All 44 GMO applications approved for commercial release in the Philippines have undergone careful review by other scientific bodies and equally competent authorities. They are as safe as their non-GMO counterparts," Halos said.
Halos added that aside from the safety assessment by experts from the BPI and the STRP, the process of approval calls for public consultations, from the initial evaluation of the technology to the testing in greenhouses, then in individual field tests and then to testing in multiple sites.
She concluded that before GMOs are released for field applications and finally to the market, the GMOs had undergone a very tedious process of public consultations, meetings with various stakeholders and careful evaluation of issues and concerns, thus farmers, consumers, medical practitioners and critics are accorded the opportunity to check on the GMOs.
As these developed, the country is pushing for international guidelines in bio-tech trade that will govern the import and export of Genetically Modified (GM) products.
Jennifer Ng in her article at the Business Mirror wrote that Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is currently meeting and in the middle of discussion in Chiba, Japan on the proposed guidelines that will govern international bio-tech trade.
Dr. Emelea Cao, director of the National Sciences Research Institute at the University of the Philippines is the country's representative to the Codex ad hoc inter-government task force on foods derived from biotechnology and she has been active in giving inputs to the CAC.
"We are very active in giving our inputs because we want to make sure that the country would be able to maximize the benefits from biotechnology trade in the future," Cao said.
According to Cao, the Codex guidelines will govern testing procedures, safety protocols and tolerance levels in place to prevent the occurrence of 'illegal events or contamination."
While the implementation of the proposed guidelines is voluntary, Cao said the guidelines will be a good reference point especially for countries that are keen on importing biotechnology products.
Paul Green, a consultant with the International Grain Trade Coalition, earlier said guidelines that will govern the international trade of GM products would help prevent food shortages caused by a number of factors, such as the rise in demand for biofuels, Ng wrote.
Source: Check Biotech
GMO Pundit
September 30, 2007
CBC News GMO Debate OECD Summit Edinburgh 2000
For those who prefer movies and civilized conversation to the text and still graphics at this blogsite, Youtube provides a video debate about GM crops. In this link, Canadian scientist Alan McHughen and Soil Association's Patrick Holden go head to head in Edinburgh.
Holden's 2000 prediction, made during the interview, of the impending demise of GM crops has yet to pan out.
Source: GMO Pundit
KTIV
September 30, 2007
Every day thousands of children in developing nations die of starvation. But scientists at U.C. Davis are working on new technology to bring them and a lot of other people healthier food. The problem.. some wonder if it's safe.
You're looking at the latest in what's called seed biotechnology. Critics call it food altering, but scientists believe engineering the gene make up of crops, like rice, can increase food production while also making it more nutritious.
Professor Kent Bradford says, "If we're going to double or triple food production without taking over rain forests, marginal lands, areas for wildlife and so on, then we have to be able to produce crops very efficiently and at high yield."
Researchers are convinced the new technology can help feed more people around the world in a way that's better for the environment.
Jorge Mayer says, "You can reduce the use of pesticides by introducing a gene that is not available in the genetic diversity of a crop and reduce the use of pesticides."
But critics from the environmental community say they are troubled by the concept of modifying the genetic code for crops.
Dan Jacobson says, "There's nothing wrong with feeding the world. The questions and concerns that we have are - is it a safe way to feed the world? And that hasn't been proven at all yet."
But many scientists insist the technology is safe, and that genetically engineered crops are already in production on 200-million acres worldwide. Critics say they'd like that food to be labeled clearly for consumers.
Source: KTIV
Truth about Trade & Technology
Dean Kleckner, Chairman, Truth About Trade & Technology
September 28, 2007
GM crops are good for ladybugs.
That’s one of the fascinating results from a detailed study published recently in Science, the prestigious journal of the “Triple A-S,” also known as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Biotechnology is also good for bees and earthworms--and presumably for lots of other species as well. The implications for sustainable agriculture are significant. The study suggests strongly that biotechnology not only can play a helpful role in conservation efforts but may in fact represent an environmental improvement over traditional methods of pest control.
These new findings are the result of what scientists call a “meta-analysis.” It means that they looked at an ark-load of separate research and tried to draw common lessons from it. In this particular case, they examined 42 field experiments involving Bt crops in America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
The biologists who culled through all of this data aren’t exactly a bunch of corporate shills, either. They’re associated with four environmentally-minded organizations: the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Studies Institute at Santa Clara University, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, and the University of California at Santa Barbara.
They did exactly what scientists are supposed to do: They set aside any biases they might have and took an honest look at the evidence.
Their most important observation can be summarized in a single sentence: “Nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides.”
In other words, biotechnology allows crops to defend themselves against specific pests, such as rootworm, without imposing collateral damage on other species, such as ladybugs. And it’s accomplished using less resources while protecting our environment.
“This is a groundbreaking study and the first of its kind to evaluate the current science surrounding genetically modified crops,” said Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy. “The results are significant for how we think about technology and the future of sustainable agriculture.”
To be sure, the researchers also found that certain species were more abundant in control (that usually means ‘weedy’) fields that weren’t touched by either biotechnology or insecticides. But that’s no surprise, and it doesn’t have much bearing on agricultural practices because almost everybody expects farmers to employ pest-control strategies, especially consumers who enjoy eating fresh produce.
The authors of the article in Science realized that their findings had the potential to kick up a controversy--mainly because anti-biotech activists are always looking for ways to discredit data they don’t like in their never-ending quest to frighten the public about biotechnology. Yet the scientists were determined to stick to the facts: “Regardless of one’s philosophical perspective on risk assessment for GM crops, enough experimental data has accumulated to begin drawing empirically based conclusions, as opposed to arguing on the basis of anecdote or hand-picked examples.”
They went on to call for “further study,” as research scientists are prone to do. This should terrify the anti-biotech activists because further study, conducted along the same truthful lines as the article in Science magazine, is like a dagger pointed at the heart of their lies.
Ordinary people who don’t have ideological axes to grind will see this evidence as good news. In an opinion poll just released by the International Food Information Council, 63 percent of Americans indicated that agricultural sustainability is important to them--and many specifically cited “reducing the amount of pesticides needed to produce food” as a priority.
The bottom line is that biotechnology is not merely compatible with sustainable agriculture--it can actually provide some of the sustenance.
Source: Truth about Trade & Technology
Food Navigator USA
September 27, 2007
Monsanto, a leading global biotechnology company, yesterday said it expects to almost triple its presence outside of the United States.
Currently, there are some 95 million acres outside the US planted with Monsanto's biotech traits.
"We believe there is an untapped opportunity to grow our international traits business by approximately another 175 million acres," said the firm's vice president of global commercial business, Brett Begemann, yesterday.
"Strong global adoption of our proven traits coupled with recent approvals paves the way for expanded growth and sets the stage for new growth as we look to stack and upgrade these products in the coming years," he told investors at the 16th Credit Suisse Chemicals Conference held in New York.
The forecasts highlight a growing global adoption of genetically modified crops, resulting partly from the increased acceptance of the technology as a means to address climate and yield challenges.
According to Begemann, Monsanto's corn seeds technologies saw strong adoption in Argentina, Europe, South Africa and India, with growth in this field anticipated at one to two share points annually through the end of the decade.
In Brazil, the recent acquisition of Agroeste corn brands expands Monsanto's market share to 40 percent. In addition, Brazilian farmers planted around 50 percent of acres with Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean variety, which the company says is a "step towards" the 95 percent penetration levels it is aiming for.
In Argentina, Monsanto is aiming to have its stacked trait corn product planted on seven million acres by the end of the decade, while in India the firm believes its cotton trait product has the potential to be planted on 15 to 20 million acres in the period.
Although the popularity of biotech crops continues to grow as the market lets down certain barriers connected to the use of the technology, consumer demand continues to be a major challenge.
In an environment of a growing demand for all things natural, organic, ethical and sustainable, many consumers continue to turn their noses up at the idea of genetically modified foods, particularly in Europe.
In the US, the technology has generally been better accepted, although studies show that many consumers remain ignorant of the use of genetic modification in the food chain.
According to a new report by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), less than one quarter of American consumers believe that biotech foods are currently available in supermarkets, which highlights a huge gap in consumer education and informed choices.
This gap is largely a result of the fact that FDA regulations do not require the labeling of biotech foods, unless the use of biotechnology introduces an allergen, or if it substantially changes the food's nutritional content.
Source: Food Navigator USA
AgBios
International Food Information Council
September 24, 2007
Consumer familiarity and overall impression of food biotechnology remains little changed from a year ago in the United States, amidst major concern over food safety. Consumer familiarity and overall impression of food biotechnology remains little changed from a year ago in the United States, amidst major concern over food safety. According to a survey commissioned by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), there was little change in the American public's perception of food biotechnology, and those who have an opinion are twice as likely to have favorable-as opposed to unfavorable- impressions.
"The public's attitudes about food biotechnology remained constant despite a year of tremendous media attention on food concerns" said IFIC President and CEO David Schmidt. The national survey represents the 12th time IFIC has commissioned a survey on public attitudes about food biotechnology since 1997.
* Confidence in U.S. Food Supply
Overall confidence in the food supply remained at a high level with 69 percent of Americans indicating they were "very" or "somewhat" confident in the food supply compared to 72 percent last year. However, the number of Americans selecting "very confident" decreased from 21 percent in 2006 to 15 percent this year.
A sizeable number of Americans (25 percent) cited no particular food safety concern. Of the three-quarters of respondents who listed a specific food safety concern, disease and contamination topped the list at 38 percent; however, the biggest increase was in the "source" category, where concern about country of origin caused this category to rise from 6 percent of those citing a specific concern with the food supply in 2006 to 20 percent this year. Handling and preparation decreased as a food safety concern, cited by 26 percent of those citing a specific concern this year, dropping nine percent from last year's survey.
* Animal Biotechnology
While the public's overall favorable impression of plant biotechnology remained little changed in the past year, favorable impressions of animal biotechnology increased from 19 percent in 2006 to 24 percent this year. Nearly half of Americans (46 percent) said they were "somewhat" or "very" likely to buy meat, milk and eggs from cloned animals if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined they were safe. When the phrase "from cloned animals" was replaced with "from animals enhanced through genetic engineering" the number of Americans who were "very" or "somewhat" likely to buy these food products jumped to 61 percent. Both of these figures show an increase from the 2006 survey.
Increased awareness of potential positive impacts of animal biotechnology continues to correlate with increased support among consumers. Two-thirds of consumers (66 percent) said they had a positive impression of animal biotechnology when informed that "animal biotechnology can improve the quality and safety of food," up from 59 percent in 2006. More than half of Americans (53 percent) reacted positively to the statement "animal biotechnology can increase farm efficiency," up from 36 percent in 2005 and 47 percent in 2006.
* Labeling
Satisfaction with current information on food labels remained high in 2007. Only 16 percent of consumers mentioned information they felt was missing, with less than one percent specifically mentioning biotechnology.
Continue reading "Food Safety Concerns Do Not Include Biotechnology, According to IFIC Survey" »
Check biotech
September 24, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa - DuPont today announced it is commercializing soybean varieties developed using a technology that increases yields by as much as 12 percent per acre. DuPont seed business Pioneer Hi-Bred is introducing five varieties with the technology for 2008 planting, pending wide-area product advancement trial results.
This announcement officially launches one of the company's three soybean yield traits from its pipeline to commercial status. It will be commercially known as Accelerated Yield Technology(TM) (AYT(TM)). AYT(TM) uses proprietary molecular breeding techniques to rapidly scan and identify genes that increase yield and then incorporate them into elite soybean genetics.
"AYT(TM) allows us to take a giant step forward on our promise to deliver industry-leading improvements in soybeans. Our customers are seeing dramatic increases in Pioneer soybean variety yields that have never been seen in such a short period of time," said William S. Niebur, vice president DuPont Crop Genetics Research and Development. "This technology embodies our business philosophy to increase the productivity and profitability of our customers to help them meet the rising demand for food, feed, fuel and materials."
Until now, molecular breeding techniques used by the seed industry have only produced single-gene defensive traits in commercial varieties. There are multiple genes in complex networks that determine the final yield level achieved. AYT(TM) builds upon DuPont industry-leading molecular breeding techniques by allowing researchers to simultaneously select multiple genes to significantly boost yields. AYT(TM) is not transgenic so soybeans developed from this process are not subject to additional regulatory approvals.
The first AYT(TM) varieties are higher yielding versions of the newest Pioneer elite soybean genetics. Pending final trial results this fall, Pioneer hopes to introduce an AYT(TM) version of Pioneer(R) brand 94M80, which set the world record soybean yield of 139 bushels per acre in 2006. New unique genetics are also being developed using AYT(TM) and other molecular breeding techniques.
"Full implementation of AYT(TM) combined with molecular breeding technologies will enable Pioneer to make a new class of soybeans that has unprecedented yield potential relative to anything we have ever seen," Niebur said. "These technologies allow us to incorporate a complete package of offensive and defensive characteristics that could make 100-plus bushel soybean yields a common occurrence in the very near future."
About Pioneer
Pioneer Hi-Bred, a DuPont business, is the world's leading source of customized solutions for farmers, livestock producers and grain and oilseed processors. With headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, Pioneer provides access to advanced plant genetics in nearly 70 countries.
About DuPont
DuPontis a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.
Website: http://www.dupont.com/
Source: Check biotech
GMO Africa
September 24, 2007
Two weeks ago in this blog, I applauded a group of scientists from South Africa for discovering a maize (corn) variety genetically modified to resist Maize Streak Virus (MSV). Their discovery was first reported by the ScienceDaily.com.
MSV is, perhaps, the second gravest threat facing maize farmers in Africa and elsewhere after the stem borer. Scientists in the U.S. have already developed maize genetically modified to resist stem borer, and it’s already under commercial cultivation in several countries including South Africa. Known as Bt maize, it’s one of the most popular genetically modified food ever to have been developed by crop geneticists.
It’s quite a big deal that African scientists have developed transgenic maize that might be part of a solution to Africa’s food problems using modern agricultural biotechnology. This is a remarkable development because the central argument in the current debate about genetically modified (GM) crops is that they’re irrelevant to Africa. Critics argue that they have been developed by scientists, mainly from the U.S., who least understand Africa’s agricultural needs. Multinational biotech companies hoist them on Africa and other poor countries purely for profit, so the argument goes.
Personally, I am opposed to segregating scientific research, and I have written as much on this topic. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I faulted the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a nongovernmental organization led by the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, for trying to play down the relevance of agricultural biotechnology to Africa’s agriculture.
Scientific research, including in the field of agricultural biotechnology, knows no boundaries. The increasing interest in agricultural biotechnology research by scientists in developing countries attests to this.
I gather that Chinese scientists have, also, genetically modified maize that could help increase nutritional value of livestock feedstock, another testimony that developing countries are keen to explore potential benefits of genetically modified crops. According to a news article on the SciDev.net web site, the corn “…produces seeds containing high levels of an enzyme called phytase…which helps livestock to digest phosphorous.” Phosphorous is an important nutritional element found in corn and soy feeds.
The next step should be for developing countries to develop the necessary infrastructure to commercialize agricultural biotechnology innovations. China is well placed to attain this goal.
Much, however, needs to be done in Africa. For Africa to develop, scientific innovations must be commercialized. African governments and the donor community must join hands to ensure this happens. This way researchers will be encouraged to word harder. There’s no doubt that scientists in developing countries are increasingly engaging in agricultural biotechnology research. They must soldier on. There’s so much potential in this field that they can’t afford to neglect it.
Source: GMO Africa
The Meridian Institute
September 18, 2007
U.S. and Korean researchers have developed genetically modified (GM) potatoes with increased freezing tolerance of up to -5 °Celsius. To develop the potatoes, researchers introduced the genes AtBCF for freezing tolerance from Arabidopsis thaliana, as well as a promoter that acts to promote expression of the genes under cold conditions. The introduction of the cold-inducible promoter, together with the AtBCF genes, was found to minimize the expression of certain agronomically undesirable traits, such as delayed flowering and retarded growth, which had previously been attributed to the AtBCF genes. The article says that efforts to develop freeze-tolerance potatoes through conventional breeding have so far been unsuccessful. However, the trait is an important one because even a brief exposure to frost can significantly reduce potato yields, while hard frosts can completely destroy entire crops. The researchers are working to apply their freeze tolerance technology in additional crops as well. Their research results are published in the September edition of the Plant Biotechnology Journal. The article and a link to the scientific abstract are available online at the link below.
Source: The Meridian Institute
ScienceDaily
University of Delaware
September 18, 2007
Science Daily — Using a novel “deep sequencing” technology that can in one fell swoop decode 50 million sequences representing well over a billion bases of DNA, a research team led by University of Delaware scientists is working to unmask where, why and how certain genes are switched on or off in rice--a crop vital to the world's food supply.
The goal of the four-year project, which is supported by a $5.3-million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF), is to advance scientific understanding of the rice epigenome--the series of biochemical modifications of the rice DNA that can toggle a gene on or, conversely, silence it. Ultimately, the research may lead to the development of hardier strains of rice, as well as shed light on similar mechanisms at work in corn and other important cereal grains that are closely related to rice.
Blake Meyers, associate professor of plant and soil sciences at UD, is the principal investigator on the project, which also involves Guo-Liang Wang, a rice biologist from Ohio State University; Steven Jacobsen, an expert in epigenetics, and computer scientist Matteo Pellegrini, both from the University of California at Los Angeles; and Yulin Jia, a plant pathologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center in Stuttgart, Ark.
The effort builds on Meyers' previous awards from the NSF Plant Genome Research Program, as well as ongoing investigations of small RNAs--short lengths of ribonucleic acids that act as gene regulators--performed in collaboration with Pamela Green, the Crawford H. Greenewalt Endowed Chair in Plant Molecular Biology at UD, whose lab is next door to Meyers' in the Delaware Biotechnology Institute. These projects have now propelled the research in a new direction, to new frontiers in the field of epigenetics.
“Epigenetics refers to a heritable change that is not a result of a change in DNA sequence, but rather a chemical modification of nucleotides in the DNA or its associated proteins,” Meyers said. “That means that these changes can be reversible, and it's easier to switch them on or off. Small RNAs are one of the key 'control switches,' directing these modifications,” Meyers noted.
State-of-the-art sequencing by synthesis (SBS) technology developed by Solexa Inc., in Hayward, Calif., will provide the data essential to the project. This novel “deep sequencing” tool, which can decode tens of millions of sequences during a single run, has become available over the last year. The application of SBS to epigenetics research was demonstrated in the human genome only within the past few months. The UD-led effort will be one of the first large-scale projects to use this approach in crop plants.
“If you think of a gene as part of a set of chromosomes, a gene is just a small fraction of a percent of a complete genome,” Meyers said. “If we learn about that gene by random sampling, by using 50 million total sequences, which is what SBS provides, we can characterize that gene at depth,” he noted. “Using this method, we can obtain statistically robust data for nearly all genomic regions in a single experiment.”
Continue reading "Deep Sequencing May Lead To Hardier Strains Of Rice" »
Daily Mail
September 17, 2007
Several government ministers are throwing their weight behind a campaign to get genetically modified crops back on the public agenda, it has been reported.
Some senior ministers now believe the public is ready to embrace the controversial technology, which will enable crops to produce a higher yield and be used for bio-fuel.
It is believed they are liaising with key agricultural supporters of GM to push the government into launching a national debate on the issue to highlight the benefits.
One government source said: "GM will come back to the UK, the question is how it comes back, not whether it's coming back."
Attempts to introduce GM to Britain in the late 1990s met a wave of hostility from varied sources.
Activists took direct action tearing up crops while supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer barred GM ingredients from their products for fear of sparking a consumer backlash.
In 2004, the government announced that no GM crops would be grown in the country for the 'foreseeable future' sparking Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, to declare, "This is the end of GM in Britain".
Currently, only one UK company - the plant science company BASF - is trialing GM crops, in this case a blight-resistant potato in tests in Cambridge and Yorkshire.
The Government claims that it still considers applications by companies to grow GM crops on a 'case by case basis'.
But at the moment, it is not believed that any other UK companies are applying for licences to grow GM crops.
Recent polls also revealed that about 70 per cent of the European public is opposed to GM foods.
But despite this, several ministers and key agricultural figures now believe the time is right to get the issue back on the agenda.
Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said: "We have absolutely every confidence that GM will be used in the UK."
Last night, a Defra spokeswoman insisted the Government's position had not changed.
She said: "GM technology is not wholly good or bad and the only sensible approach is to consider GM crops on a case-by-case basis."
"Each proposed crop will go through a detailed risk assessment that involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists - not only here but throughout the EU."
"We do not expect any commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK before 2009 at the very earliest."
"And before any GM crops are grown here commercially we will introduce measures to ensure they can coexist with non-GM crops."
"Ultimately it will be for farmers and consumers to decide whether they want GM products. If there is no market for them GM crops will not be grown."
Source: Daily Mail
Reuters
Sep 17, 2007
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Large-scale cultivation of transgenic crops is a necessity if India is to feed a growing population and use more of its farmland for industry and homes, a senior government official said on Monday.
"Whether we like it or not, transgenic crops will soon be a reality," Mangala Rai, secretary of the Department of Agriculture Research and Education, told an international conference on biotechnology.
Producing more food from less land would require widespread use of GM crops, which can provide higher yields, he said.
"Self-sufficiency in food is crucial and the only way to ensure that is to adopt the GM technology. There cannot be two views on the issue," Rai added.
Opponents of the use of biotechnology in food crops argue the new varieties could not only threaten the environment but also the health of consumers.
Despite being the world's second-largest producer of wheat, India has had to import massive amounts of the grain in the last two years as harvests failed to meet demand and fill buffer stocks to the required levels.
In a sign the government is increasingly looking to the laboratory for an answer to India's food security worries, it last month approved the first large-scale field trials of a genetically modified food crop.
A new hybrid variety of the popular brinjal vegetable, which promises better yields with less intensive use of pesticides, will be planted at test sites.
India has allowed commercial cultivation of genetically modified bacillus thuringiensis or Bt cotton seeds cotton since 2002.
The decision led to wide-spread protests from social activists who feared ecological damage.
Rai said the genetically architectured seeds have helped India raise cotton output by 3-4 million bales a year.
India, the world's second-largest cotton producer after China, overtook the United States with estimated output of 28 million bales (1 bale=170 kg) in the year to September 2007.
Argentinian Deputy Secretary of Agricultural Policy and Food Fernando Nebbia told the conference GM crops were essential to raise foodgrains output, but a stronger regulatory framework was necessary to address concerns.
He said Argentina, the world's second-biggest producer of genetically modified grains, has planted bio-engineered crops across 60 percent of its cultivated farmland.
Source: Reuters
The Wichita Eagle
BY PHYLLIS JACOBS GRIEKSPOOR
September 15, 2007
JUNCTION CITY - Within a month, Kansas will begin its first-ever rice harvest.
But this is not your average rice. The crop that will be harvested from about 300 acres of Geary County farmland has been genetically engineered to express a protein found in human breast milk.
It is headed for a processing plant in Junction City where it will become a key product in the fight against childhood diarrhea, the second-leading killer of infants and small children worldwide.
The Junction City plant is the only processing plant for Ventria Bioscience, a California company that has been working on the development of the rice and the method of processing it for eight years. It has been processing at the Junction City plant since June, using rice harvested in other growing areas.
The products being made include a liquid suspension and a powder, both of which contain the protein concentrate in a form that can be added to rehydration fluids and used to combat childhood diarrhea.
Current production at the plant has a market value of about $3 million a year, said Ventria chief executive Scott Deeter. A year from now, the company expects to be producing 20 times that volume.
"We're going into initial test marketing this year," Deeter said. "The initial tests will be in a domestic market with a population of around 250,000. If all goes as expected, we will start the expansion plan."
Ventria has a permit to grow up to 3,200 acres of the rice and contracts with local growers for production. Farmers can expect to earn about $200 more per acre than they could expect to earn from growing irrigated corn or soybeans on the same acreage.
The rice is ground to a flour on the farm and transported to the plant as a flour.
Last week, officials of Ventria, shareholders of the company, city officials from Junction City and state Secretary of Agriculture Adrian Polansky toured the processing plant and the test plots where Kansas State University is growing about a dozen varieties of rice in an effort to see which performs best for protein content, yield and plant health.
"It's been kind of an unusual year in that we've had far more rain that we normally see," said Greg Unruh, Ventria vice president and general manager of the Junction City plant. "Of course, rice loves water, so we're expecting it to do well this year."
The Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp. (KTEC) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority were instrumental in bringing Ventria to Junction City. The company had manufacturing operations in Iowa and in St. Louis, but has moved all its production to Kansas.
About 10 people are currently working at Junction City. Unruh said he expects employment to double by the end of the year. The company will also be hiring mechanics and machinery operators to help with the Kansas harvest.
Unruh said he is excited to see harvest nearing and learning how the Kansas-grown product performs in processing.
"It's really rewarding to be part of something that is bringing a new product, new benefits to people and new economic development to Kansas," he said.
Source: The Wichita Eagle
SeedQuest
Brussels, Belgium
September 14, 2007
Yesterday, the European Court of Justice confirmed that statutory GMO-free regions are illegal. The Court dismissed the appeals of Upper Austria and the Austrian Government against their ban on the use of biotech crops in the region of Upper Austria.
“This is great news for farmers, for the scientific based risk assessment of the EFSA and for the EU biotech regulatory framework which the Member States put in place. Industry now calls on the region of Upper Austria to drop its illegal and unscientific opposition to approved biotech crops and allow Austrian farmers the choice to grow GMOs if they so wish.” said Johan Vanhemelrijck, Secretary General EuropaBio – the EU association for bioindustries. “Attempts to create socalled “GMO-free regions” should be seen for what they are: a denial of the freedom of choice for farmers and consumers.”
The Judgement says that practices like organic agriculture and small scale farming cannot be used as an argument to ban cultivation of approved biotech crops. Both the Commission and the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel have stated in the past that “farmers should be able to produce in a traditional way, be it conventional or organic, according to the high quality and safety standards in the EU. And they should as well have the choice to produce GM-crops, if they see advantages in doing so and find a market for them.” (1)
Farmers can take official action against their region if it tries to stop them from cultivating EU approved biotech crops, while freedom of choice guarantees that individual or groups of farmers are free to cultivate conventional, organic or biotech crops. Today’s decision confirms that it is illegal for regional or national governments to impose bans and deprive individual farmers of the choice to grow biotech crops which have been approved for commercial cultivation in the EU.
EuropaBio is the European Association for Bioindustries, solely and uniquely bringing together bioscience companies from all fields of research and development, testing, manufacturing and distribution of biotechnology products. It has 84 corporate members operating worldwide, 12 associate members, 5 BioRegions and 25 national biotechnology associations representing some 1800 small and medium sized enterprises involved in research.
(1) (European Report, 8 April 2005, “Genetic engineering: Fischer Boel tells GM free regions all-out ban 'not justified”).
Source: SeedQuest
SciDev.Net
Jia Hepeng
September 13, 2007
[BEIJING] Chinese scientists have developed a genetically modified (GM) corn that could help improve the nutritional value of livestock feed and reduce pollution.
The research was announced by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) this week (10 September). The corn has now entered pre-production field trials.
The GM corn produces seeds containing high levels of an enzyme called phytase. The enzyme helps livestock to digest phosphorus, an important nutritional element found in corn and soy feeds.
Cereal grains and oilseeds, the main ingredients of feeds, contain large quantities of phytic acid, which has adequate phosphorus content, but livestock such as pigs lack sufficient phytase in their digestive tract to absorb enough phosphorus. This means large amounts of phosphorus are released into the environment through animal waste.
As a result, farmers add phytase to animal feed to help livestock digest phosphorus. The enzyme is a product of fermentation by microorganisms, a process which has high production costs.
The CAAS scientists — funded by the state — isolated the gene that produces phytase from a species of the fungus Aspergillus, and inserted it into corn.
Chen Rumei, of the Institute of Biotechnology under CAAS and a member of the research team, said that when compared to other corn varieties, the rate of seed germination, growth speed and yield of the GM corn were no different.
She told SciDev.Net that, under current industry criteria for feed additives, adding just a few grams of the GM corn seed per kilogram of animal feed would be enough to satisfy livestock's nutritional demand for phosphorus.
"If this technology is commercialised, we can save up to 450 million yuan (US$60 million) per year in energy costs used to produce industrial phytase enzyme additives," Chen adds.
"This could be translated into saved costs for farmers in purchasing additives," she says. And farmers who plant the GM corn rather than common corn varieties could increase their income by about 1500 yuan (US$200) per hectare.
Li Zhensheng, former vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the chair of the Ministry of Agriculture team who evaluated the project, says phosphorus pollution caused by animal waste has been a serious problem, resulting in widespread algal blooms in the Chinese lakes (see Pollution control key to beating China's algal blooms).
"If the phytase enzyme-rich feed produced from the GM corn is widely applied, phosphorus pollution caused by animal waste will be significantly reduced, and the ecology could be largely improved," Li says.
China has not yet approved any GM corn for commercial sale.
Source: SciDev.Net
Truth About Trade and Technology
September 13, 2007
From dust bowls in Australia to drought-hit regions in the U.S., Africa, Asia and the Mideast, growing areas are drying out, helping push crop prices to record highs.
Wheat prices topped $9 a bushel for the first time Wednesday, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said strong global demand and tight supplies will push U.S. stockpiles to a 33-year low.
U.S. crop-year-ending stocks of wheat are forecast to fall to 362 million metric tons in 2007-08 vs. 456 million a year earlier.
Some blame bad farming. Others cite climate changes that reduce rainfall and raise temperatures.
Arid Agriculture
The good news is that big agribusiness players such as Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis are using genetic engineering to produce drought-resistant crops — including corn and grain — that grow on far less water than regular strains.
"If one result of global climate change could be increased drought, then drought-resistant corn and other crops would certainly help mitigate this stress," said Sara Duncan, a Monsanto spokeswoman.
Even if global warming proves more of a fizzle than a threat, scientists warn that the expanding world population intensifies the use of wells and other irrigation sources to grow food. This drains local water tables, rivers and lakes — exacerbating the drought issue.
"It's an irrigation issue, not a climate issue," said Kendal Hirschi, a molecular geneticist and associate director of research for the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center at Texas A&M University. "Most drought is caused by bad irrigation practices and not climate change. And it's a matter of making crops more productive as the amount of arid regions increase."
The U.N. Environment Program estimates that 70% of the world's fresh water used annually goes to agriculture. Nations like Brazil that never faced water shortages are seeing them now, the U.N. says.
Monsanto is using genetic engineering to develop drought-resistant corn, soybeans and cotton.
"Corn is the furthest along and will most likely be the first to market," said Duncan, who expects it to be rolled out in a few years.
She says such designer crops will also help satisfy growing demand for corn for use in making ethanol.
Continue reading "Droughts Drive Up Crop Prices, Spur Push For Engineered Seeds" »
EurekAlert
Barry Whyte
September 10, 2007
Blacksburg, Va. – An international team of scientists has produced a new type of rice that grows better and uses water more efficiently than other rice crops. Professor Andy Pereira at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI) has been working with colleagues in India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Mexico and The Netherlands to identify, characterize and make use of a gene known as HARDY that improves key features of this important grain crop. The research, which was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that HARDY contributes to more efficient water use in rice, a primary source of food for more than half of the world’s population. *
Rice (Oryza sativa) is a water guzzler when compared to other crops. It typically uses up to three times more water than other food crops such as maize or wheat and consumes around 30 percent of the fresh water used for crops worldwide. In conditions where water is scarce, it is important to have crops that can efficiently generate biomass (plant tissue) using limited amounts of water. HARDY rice shows a significant increase in biomass under both drought and non-drought conditions. The researchers found that the biomass of HARDY rice increased by around 50 percent under conditions of water deprivation (drought) compared to the unmodified version of the same type of rice.
Dr. Andy Pereira, professor at VBI, stated: “This transdisciplinary research project involved the study of two plants. First we used a powerful gain-of-function screening technique to look at a large number of Arabidopsis plants that might have features favorable to water and drought resistance. We were able to identify the HARDY mutant due to its considerable reluctance to be pulled from the soil and its smaller, darker green leaves. Molecular and physiological characterization showed that the improved water usage efficiency was linked to the HARDY gene.”
Dr. Aarati Karaba, who worked on the project as a graduate student jointly at the University of Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore, India, and at Plant Research International, Wageningen, The Netherlands, commented: “The next step was to introduce the HARDY gene into rice and examine the features arising from this transformation. In rice, HARDY seems to work in a slightly different way than Arabidopsis but it still leads to improved water-use efficiency and higher biomass. Further studies showed that HARDY significantly enhances the capacity of rice to photosynthesize while at the same time reducing water loss from the crop.”
Dr. Andy Pereira, added: “DNA microarray analysis allowed us to look at gene expression patterns regulated by HARDY. We specifically focused on genes that have gene ontology (GO) terms, namely genes that have been assigned by the scientific community to specific biological processes or functions. Using this approach we were able to identify clusters of known genes regulated by HARDY whose levels changed under conditions of plant water deprivation. We also saw distinct changes of gene clusters linked to the metabolism of key proteins and carbohydrates, which probably explains some of the feature differences we have detected in Arabidopsis and rice.”
The scientists have been able to track down these improvements in water-use efficiency to a specific type of molecule known as AP2/ERF-like transcription factor. Transcription factors are proteins that bind to DNA and control gene expression and the HARDY gene encodes a protein that belongs to a specific class of AP2/ERF-like transcription factors. Shital Dixit, Graduate student at Plant Research International, Wageningen, The Netherlands, commented: “At this point in time, we do not know the exact function of this transcription factor although we suspect that it impacts maturation processes linked to tissue desiccation. More work remains to be done to elucidate the precise function of this protein as well as the processes on which it has a major impact. What is clear is that HARDY rice offers the exciting prospect of improved water-use efficiency and drought resistance in rice and perhaps other grain or seed crops. This should contribute in a sustainable way to maintaining high crop yields under conditions of limited water availability.”
###
* Karaba A, Dixit S, Greco R, Aharoni A, Trijatmiko KR, Marsch-Martinez N, Krishnan A, Nataraja KN, Udayakumar M, Pereira A (2007) Improvement of water use efficiency in rice by expression of HARDY an Arabidopsis drought and salt tolerance gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in press. Available in advance on-line at http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml
Source: EurekAlert
ISAAA
September 03, 2007
Peanut allergy is one of the most common causes of deaths from food allergies, accounting for more than 100 deaths in the US alone per year. It is characterized by more severe symptoms and at a higher rate on minimal contact as compared to other food allergies. Up to now there is no available cure for peanut allergy. Avoidance of peanuts is very difficult because it is commonly used as an ingredient in several food preparations. With the advent of genetic engineering, novel strategies are now being tested to solve the problem of food allergies from the source.
A group of US scientists constructed transgenic peanut lines expressing significantly lower amount of Ara h 2, the immunodominant allergen found in peanuts, using RNA interference (RNAi). Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) using sera of patients allergic to peanut was used to monitor Ara h 2 expression. Several constructs showed complete absence of the Ara h 2 protein. Other phenotypic features and characteristics of the transgenic peanuts are the same as that of the wild type. Similar studies are now being made to silence other food allergens using RNAi.
Read the full paper published by the Plant Biotechnology Journal at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00292.x or the abstract at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00292.x
Source: ISAAA
Trendy Science
Helen Pickersgill
August 30, 2007
Genes make you what you are. All living things have them (humans have about 25,000) and they're like blueprints.
So when you're being made, you will get two arms and two legs, rather than wings and a beak. Stuff like that. Genetic modification means changing a gene so the organism does or has something different. It's practically impossible to do in humans and it's only attempted for the treatment of life-threatening diseases. In plants, however, it's much easier and has spawned the current era of genetically modified foods.
I think the reason most people are afraid of GM foods is because they aren't natural like the rest of the things we buy in the supermarket. Like microwave meals, meat and potato pies, and crisps for example. Jesting aside though, even normal fruit and vegetables aren't strictly 'natural'. It's not like the raspberries grew from a stray seed that blew on a gentle breeze into a small crevice and was nurtured by the sun and the rain. What people don't realise is that so-called natural produce has already been forced to change genetically over the years. It's a bit like Hitler's plan to make us all blonde haired and blue eyed, except much less controversial and thankfully far more successful. To do that you only let the blonde and blue eyed people breed. Same with the plants, only choose the ones that look the best and last the longest. These plants have been carefully cultivated for years in artificial environments to make them look as tempting as possible (at the expense of taste unfortunately). These new techniques of genetic engineering just make the process a lot more efficient. If a geneticist (don't be afraid - I know a few and they're charming people) can make my tomato taste like a tomato should, then I applaud them and have no qualms sticking them in my salad (the tomato not the geneticist obviously- scientists thankfully aren't that crazy).
The original GM crops were developed more for the farmers and the retail industries than to make a consumer's life happier and healthier. For instance, maize and rice have had genes added that make them cheaper and easier to grow. This brings me to another common concern over GM crops - the ability of plants to pass on genes to other plants, either directly, or indirectly via a plant pathogen. But this process is inefficient, and we aren't even sure if it's a significant threat and exactly what the outcome would be. It would be like the tomato passing on one of its genes, which makes it look, smell and taste like a tomato, to a potato planted next to it and the potato becoming a bit like a tomato. (Important note: humans cannot pick up genes into their own cells from a plant by eating it or standing next to it). The problems start when a plant is modified, for example, to cope with specific herbicides or insects. If these genes get released into the wild plant populations they will alter this delicate ecosystem, and it may not be able to cope. Worst-case scenario could be that we lose some species altogether and have some plants becoming dominant and growing uncontrollably. The stringent control of GM technologies is paramount to their safety and success, and there are numerous efforts to decrease these potentially devastating effects on the natural plant populations.
Classically Liberal
August 30, 2007
Greenpeace activists in Thailand recently tried a publicity stunt to emphasize the imaginary threat of genetically engineered papaya. They were upset, as usual, about an suggestion by the Agriculture ministry to allow open field testing of GM crops.
So the Greenpeace scare mongers decided to take some GM papaya, eleven tons of it, and dump it in front of the Ministry blocking three of their gates.
The protest ran into a problem. It didn’t last long. A large crowd of onlookers rushed the pile of fruit and started packing it up and carting it off thrilled at the “free lunch” that Greenpeace had inadvertently provided them. Even officials from the Ministry grabbed some of the free food, apparently unconcerned about any supposed danger.
Greenpeace activists who tried to convince the crowd of the fictional dangers of the fruit were ignored as the happy recipients of the unintended largess took all they could carry.
On man who was sitting in his car at a stop light jumped out of the car to stock up on fruit. He told the Bangkok Post: “I’m ot scared of GM papayas. I’m scared I won’t have any to eat.”
The head doomsday prophet for the Greenpeace cult, Thailand diocese, complained that the reason people carted off the supposedly dangerous fruit was the government’s fault. Ms. Natwipha Ewasakul whined that this proves “the failure of government agencies to educate people about the possible health risks of genetically-engineered crops.”
Oh! In related news Mr. I.M. Twit bitched that the prevalence of radio signals is proof that government has not sufficiently warned the public that such signals disturb the alien life force that keeps the planet in harmony. “Continued use of radio signals could unbalance the whole planet,” said Twit, “This would lead to the eradication of gravity and we’d all die of thirst as the rain would fall upwards.” Mr. Twit showed how umbrellas could be used to catch the rising water to stave off dehydration.
And now back to the real twits.
Continue reading "Greenpeace poisons hungry crowd. Or not?" »
GMO Africa
August 30, 2007
Agricultural experts from across the world have congregated in Oslo, Norway, to discuss the future of Africa’s agriculture, including agricultural biotechnology. They are strategizing on how to kick-start the African Green Revolution. Being envisaged is an agricultural renaissance in Africa along the lines of Norman Borlaug’s 1950s Green Revolution, which transformed dozens of Asian and Latin American countries from paupers to food baskets.
I pray that the folks in Oslo exhaustively discuss every strategy that can make Africa’s agriculture shine. Africa needs to feed itself, but it wouldn’t succeed in this endeavor unless it abandons its antiquated farming methods.
Judging from the line-up of speakers attending the conference, good tidings abound. Norman Borlaug is attending, and this is good for Africa. A 1972 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his selfless efforts to feed the poor through innovative agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering, Borlaug is a man Africa must court at whatever cost. Borlaug never shy from reminding the world that modernizing agriculture is the surest way to enhance global food security.
In the ongoing debate about biotech agriculture, Borlaug has assumed an uncompromising position that Africa’s continued procrastination on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) endangers its own economic prosperity. African delegates attending this conference have a chance to hear from Borlaug what agricultural biotechnology is all about and how it can help farmers.
Then there’s Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Head of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Project. Like Borlaug, Sachs’ familiarity with Africa’s food problems and how they can be fixed is unrivaled. He has spoken fondly of integrating biotech agriculture into Africa’s agriculture. Sachs, a renowned agricultural economist, brings to the conference a wealth of experience in formulating agricultural policies for developing countries.
It is encouraging representatives of the recently formed Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are also attending this conference. Recently AGRA’s President, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, ruled out including genetically modified crops into its programs, a declaration that triggered uproar from the scientific community both in and outside Africa. AGRA’s interim Vice-President, Akinwumi Adesina, who’s in Oslo, might consider having tete-a-tete with Borlaug and Sachs on the issue. I, myself, have already advised AGRA against demonizing GM crops because, who knows, they might be part of the solution to Africa’s food problems.
Let the Oslo conference explore and discuss every possible solution to Africa’s food problems, including food biotechnology.
Source: GMO Africa
GMO Pundit
August 25, 2007
Biorefining of corn brings gelatin production into the 21st century
- American Chemical Society (press release), August 22, 2007
Here’s a great article from the American Chemical Society on plant biotechnology.
BOSTON - Scientists are reporting an advance toward turning corn plants into natural factories for producing gelatin to replace animal-sourced gelatin widely used by the pharmaceutical industry for manufacturing capsules and tablets. The advance, described today at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, may lead to a safe, inexpensive source of this protein for manufacturers who now rely on material obtained as a by-product of meat production.
Today, production of gelatin, a jelly-like substance, relies on the same fundamental methodology employed since commercial production began in the 17th century: Gelatin is derived from the break-down of collagen, which is a component of skin, tendon, bone, cartilage and connective tissue of animals. While there are no naturally occurring plant sources of gelatin, scientists have successfully modified plants, such as corn, to have a gene that results in the production of "recombinant" gelatin.
About 55,000 tons of animal-sourced gelatin are used every year to produce capsules and tablets for medicinal purposes. Plant-derived recombinant gelatin would address concerns about the possible presence of infectious agents in animal by-products and the lack of traceability of the source of the raw materials currently used to make gelatin. However, finding ways to recover and purify recombinant gelatin from plants has remained a challenge because only very low levels accumulate at the early stages of the development process.
Now, scientists at Iowa State University in Ames and FibroGen, Inc., in South San Francisco say they have developed a purification process to recover these small quantities of recombinant gelatin present in the early generations of transgenic corn. The method uses a four-step recovery system to separate the recombinant protein from other corn proteins with sufficient purity that its structure and composition can be verified, says Charles Glatz, Ph.D., a chemical engineer at Iowa State University who directed the work.
"Protein production from transgenic plants is a challenging process, with potential pitfalls all along the way," Glatz says. "It is important to develop methods in the early stages of the development program to purify gelatin to demonstrate that it can be produced properly."
The studies establish transgenic corn as a viable way to produce gelatin and potentially other products, Glatz says. In time, researchers may also be able to develop a variety of "designer" gelatins, with specific molecular weights and properties tailored to suit various needs of products containing gelatin.
"Corn is an ideal production unit, because it can handle high volumes at a low cost," he says. In addition the recombinant gelatin is free from the safety concerns of using meat byproducts.
The purification process relies on chromatographic and filtration techniques, building upon methods developed by FibroGen to recover recombinant gelatin produced in yeast.
Glatz says ultrafiltration allowed the group to take advantage of the size difference between the recombinant protein and other corn proteins.
"This step greatly reduced the process volume for later chromatographic steps, and was crucial to achieving a high purification factor."
The group is now working to refine the method and boost the overall recombinant protein yields in corn, he says. Though the procedure requires more testing, Glatz says the technique could someday be used to produce high-grade gelatin in a safe and inexpensive manner.
Overall costs could be further reduced by combining the production of gelatin in corn with the extraction of non-protein parts of the grain - such as oils and starches - that are now grown and harvested for biodiesel and ethanol production, he adds.
"Corn wouldn't be planted for its gelatin alone, but those products could help off-set the cost of biorefineries that use corn to produce other products," he says.
Cheng Zhang, a doctoral student at Iowa State University, presented details of the new purification process at the American Chemical Society meeting.
Source: GMO Pundit.
Biotech Brasil
August 25, 2007
The National Director for the Chilean Agricultural Research Institute (INIA), Leopoldo Sanchez, and the Executive Director for the Forestry Research Institute (INFOR), Marta Abalos, presented on August 13 the project “Generation and production of drought tolerant eucalyptus plants”. The entities developed the plant variety with the objective of making available to forestry companies and farmers from the Chilean arid regions, trees that can better resist situations of water shortage. The activity carried out in the INFOR headquarters in the city of Concepcion, has the intention of meeting the current and future demand for raw materials of the wood industry and related sectors. Currently the 1.8 million hectares located in the arid regions of O’Higgins and Bio-Bio is not adequately explored due to the long drought periods.
Source: Biotech Brasil
GMO Pundit
AUSTRALIA: Oils ain’t oils – the benefits of GM oilseed crops
Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry
Press release.
August 24, 2007
Healthier oils, cheaper production costs and reduced environmental impacts may be within reach if genetically modified (GM) crops are adopted by the oilseed industry.
Releasing the Bureau of Rural Sciences report GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, said the adoption of gene technology could provide consumers with significant health benefits.
“Research is underway into the development of GM oilseed crops that produce healthier oils with better ratios of unsaturated fats, high levels of omega-3 oils normally sourced from fish and increased levels of essential amino acids and vitamins,” Mr McGauran said.
The world’s major oilseed crops are soybean, rapeseed (including canola), peanut, oil palm and sunflower. They are widely used in food, feed and industrial applications. Australia produces between two and three million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops.
“Currently, GM cotton is the only approved GM oilseed crop to be commercially grown in Australia,” Mr McGauran said.
“Growing GM cotton is already proving to be both environmentally and economically beneficial to the cotton industry. Growing GM insect-resistant cotton significantly reduces the use of insecticides and production costs. Environmental and production benefits are also seen for GM canola varieties grown overseas.
“GM oilseeds also have the potential to cut production costs, increase product value and diversify the range of goods produced by the oilseed industry.
“With the acceptance of such GM oilseed varieties, Australia would successfully compete with GM canola and soybean varieties currently produced overseas.”
In Australia, all GM plants are assessed for risks to human health and safety and the environment and are regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is responsible for carrying out safety assessments of GM foods to make certain they are safe for human consumption.
Copies of the report, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry can be downloaded from the BRS website.
Preferred way to cite this report:
Holtzapffel R., Johnson H. and Mewett O., 2007, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/367109/gm_oilseed_crop_report.pdf
Continue reading "GM Crops: Australian BRS report on the benefits of GM oilseed crops" »
ISAAA
August 24, 2007
A 170 page- report on the "Economics of Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton varieties (Study in Andhra Pradesh)" by the Agro-Economic Research Centre of the Andhra University in India concludes that Bt farmers earned three times more than non-Bt cotton farmers in Guntur district and eight times more in Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh commissioned the study three years ago to examine the advantages, disadvantages, cost of cultivation and net return to Bt cotton as compared to other cotton varieties in selected districts.
The study confirmed that the average Bt farmer had a 46 per cent higher yield and applied 55 per cent less pesticides than the non-Bt cotton farmer in Guntur district. Bt cotton farmers in Warangal district applied 16 per cent less pesticides and reaped 47 per cent more cotton yield as compared to non-Bt farmers Farmers noted that Bt cotton gave early high picking rate due to less pest susceptibility and boll color was also good.
Economics of Bt Cotton vis-a-vis Traditional Cotton Varieties in Andhra Pradesh
| Items | Guntur District | Warangal District | ||
| Bt Cotton | Non-Bt Cotton | Bt Cotton | Non-Bt Cotton | |
| Yield (Kg per hectare) | 3341 | 2290 | 2380 | 1623 |
| Gross income (US$ per hectare) | 1273.50 | 896.60 | 929.30 | 621.50 |
| Total Cost (US$ per hectare) | 686.70 | 695.30 | 760.70 | 643.40 |
| Net Income (US$ per hectare) | 586.80 | 168.60 | (- 21.90) | |
(Average exchange rate in 2006: Rupee 45 per US$)
For a copy of the report, contact Prof. LK Mohan Rao, Honorary Director, Agro-Economic Research Centre (AERC), Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. More information regarding biotech in India from Bhagirath Choudhary at b.choudhary@isaaa.org.
Source: ISAAA.
Business Report
Hans Lombard, Consultant to agricultural biotechnology industry
August 23, 2007
The so-called evidence of genetically modified (GM) food dangers raised by Andrew Taynton is absolute rubbish and unsubstantiated (GM food dangers: Here is the evidence, Business Report August 14).
Taynton is entitled to his opinion but certainly not to his "facts". For "evidence", he uses an example of rats that developed potentially precancerous cell growth after being fed GM potatoes and rats that developed stomach lesions, with seven out of 40 dying within two weeks.
These so-called studies were done eight years ago, then denounced and rejected by scientists as flawed and scientifically unsubstantiated.
The infamous potato study was done by professor Arpad Pusztai in the UK in 1998.
Pusztai, in the first place, did not use GM potatoes; there were no GM potatoes grown commercially in the UK at that time. He used ordinary potatoes that he injected with a lectin.
These potatoes were never intended to be developed as a food crop, as was pointed out by Taynton's quoted source, The Lancet, in its July 3 1999 issue.
Surely Taynton must be aware by now that The Royal Society of London produced a peer review of Pusztai's study and concluded the experiments were badly designed, poorly carried out and inaccurately interpreted due to technical limitations of the experiments
I challenge Taynton to produce substantiated scientific or medical evidence of any adverse effects humans, animals or the environment have suffered as a result of GM food over the past 12 years (nine in South Africa; his reference to 65 health risks documented in a book by Jeffrey Smith is a joke: the book is a farce and flawed).
Source: Business Report
GMO Africa
August 22, 2007
Ever heard of a phrase “food imperialism?” Opponents of modern crop genetic engineering regularly use it to discredit genetically modified (GM) foods, especially in developing countries. Since virtually all agri-biotech companies are U.S.-based, they reckon that they promote the America’s dream of colonizing the global food supply.
This argument resonates well with those xenophobic enough toward anything U.S. Yes, we get to hate GM foods not out of scientifically proven safety concerns, but because they merely originate from mighty U.S. We allow activist groups to pander to us that GM crops threaten the environment and biodiversity, without demanding evidence to that effect.
Out of fear it’s misplaced - we demand that our own homegrown scientists be left alone to develop indigenous solutions to our food woes. This is usually music to those who least appreciate the potential benefits of modern agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering.
Well, there’s nothing wrong with scientists developing homegrown solutions to their countries’ food problems. Who wouldn’t love such patriotic scientists? Such efforts, however, must not be mutually exclusive to scientific developments in other parts of the world. We’re in a global village.
Personally, I don’t subscribe to zoning scientific research. Research is research irrespective of its geographical location. If research into biotech agriculture in a U.S. lab results in more nutritious, drought resistant and high yielding food crops that can be used in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, well and good.
I see no justification, for instance, to discredit genetically modified (GM) crops just because they emanate from the U.S or Canada. How excited I am to learn that scientists from South Africa have developed maize streak virus resistant transgenic maize! For a long time anti-GMOs activists have argued that the U.S. wants to hoist GM foods on unwilling Africans. Now we have our own GMO product. Will we fete or condemn it?
This is an indigenous scientific breakthrough. It’s what, I rightly guess, proponents and opponents of GMOs have been waiting for. I anticipate it will receive unequivocal endorsement. It’s INDIGENOUS.
AgBioView
Andrew Apel, guest editor
August 22, 2007
A long-standing dispute between scientists and activists over a scholarly paper has recently resulted in several embarrassing defeats for the activists.
The dispute began with the 2003 publication by the British Food Journal of "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn", authored by Douglas A. Powell, Shane Morris, and two of their colleagues. In 2004, the journal honored the paper with its Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper.
The paper presented the results of farm-to-fork consumer trials conducted in 2000 by the University of Guelph's Food Safety Network. At Birkbank Farms, owned and operated by Jeff Wilson, sweet corn engineered to resist crop pests were grown side-by-side with conventional varieties, the resulting produce was offered to consumers, and the results were later quantified.
Jeff Wilson provided much of the impetus for the study. During the 1990s, his customers expressed a desire for reduced pesticides in the fresh produce he offered from his farm. This prompted him to adopt an intensive integrated pest management program. The approach failed in 1997, though, when conditions were ideal for the European Corn Borer and the crop-destroying parasites proliferated throughout his fields. Customers who had earlier said they could deal with wormy sweet corn by simply breaking the ends off of the cobs did not abide by their claims, and sales lagged. By the end of the season, Wilson had lost about $25,000 in sales. When Dr. Powell approached him in 1999 with the notion of growing a Bt version of sweet corn which had performed well in field trials in Florida, Wilson was more than interested.
One thing led to another, and eventually to the study of consumer preferences. When consumers were offered a choice between the varieties of corn, they were informed of the differences between them with a large placard which read: "Delivering High Quality Sweet Corn. In order to provide you with the quality of sweet corn that you want we have three options. 1. Genetically engineered Bt-sweet corn: contains Bt protein in leaves and stalk; and requires fewer insecticides to prevent worm damage thus minimizing environmental impact. 2. Bt-spray -- same Bt protein as in genetically engineered variety but sprayed on leaves; and protein exists naturally in environment and breaks down rapidly... 3. Conventional pesticides -- used by most farmers to create worm free corn; and applied according to guidelines set by governments, but harm to beneficial insects observed."
The consumers who participated said they made their choices based on taste and quality, as well as reduced use of chemical pesticides in production. In the end, engineered varieties outsold conventional sweet corn by a margin of three to two.
This finding contradicted what activists had for years been claiming about consumer sentiment. In response, the activists used a tactic similar to that lately used by Greenpeace to claim engineered corn is bad for rats. They didn't deny the data generated by the trials involved. Rather, they attacked the means used to reach the conclusion and offered their own interpretation.
Biotechnology blog
August 21, 2007
This advertorial appeared in the Aug. 26, 2002, special edition of Time magazine titled "The Green Century."
-
It's no wonder that global plantings of biotech crops increased nearly 20 percent last year.1 Farmers around the world have learned how technology in a seed helps them grow more food and crops while preserving their land. And plant biotechnology will likely become even more important in creating a greener 21st century.
-
An increasing global population is fueling demand for more and better food. Experts say farmers will need to at least double their production2 over the next 25 years to feed these new mouths at a time when annual yield increases have slowed.3 That puts both agricultural and wilderness areas under intense pressure. Consider:Environmental experts fear that up to half the world's 6 billion acres of tropical forests will be lost to agricultural expansion.4 Biologists warn that as many as 20 percent of all species in those forests could be extinct within 30 years.5 Two out of every three people could live in water-stressed conditions by 2025.6 Biotechnology could help by allowing farmers to grow more food on existing acres, including drought-prone or other marginal lands, which could reduce the need to put remaining wilderness areas under the plow. Researchers, for example, are developing:Corn and rice plants that are more tolerant of aluminum - a common soil toxin.7
-
Tomatoes and other crops that can thrive in salty soil8 - an agricultural problem in many arid regions where irrigation is used. And biotechnology is helping farmers produce more corn that can be used for bio-based fuels such as ethanol. In the future, biotechnology could help develop more renewable raw materials for energy and other industrial uses, and therefore provide even more environmental benefits.
-
A new study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy quantified the impact of biotech crops in the United States. Eight biotech crops planted in 2001 - including soybeans and cotton - boosted total production by 4 billion pounds, reduced spraying by 46 million pounds and generated an additional $1.5 billion in income for farmers.9
-
"Unless we are ready to accept starvation, or place parks and the Amazon basin under the plow, there really is only one good alternative: Discover ways to increase food production from existing resources," says Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program. "Biotechnology is by default our best and, maybe, only way to increase production to meet future food needs."10
-
Reducing hunger and sustaining the environment - those are good ideas worth growing.
1 James, Clive, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, ISAAA Briefs No. 24 - 2001,
2 State of World Population 2001," Chapter 2, Environment Trends, Moving Towards Food Security subhead, UN Population Fund, Nov. 7, 2001, <www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/ch02.html#2d>.
3 Hautea, Randy A., James, Clive. "The Road to Global Sustainable Agriculture: A View and Experience from ISAAA,"
4 "Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture," CGIAR, P. 24, <www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/shahbook/shahbook.pdf>.
5 "Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture," CGIAR, P. 24, <www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/shahbook/shahbook.pdf>.
6 Global Environment Outlook, 2000 - United Nations Environment Programme, <www.unep.org/geo2000/>.
7 "Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture," CGIAR, <www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/shahbook/shahbook.pdf>.
8 O'Connor, Anahad. "Altered Tomato Thrives in Salty Soil," New York Times, Aug. 14, 2001.
9 Gianessi, Leonard P. "Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture, An Analysis of 40 Case Studies, <www.ncfap.org/40CaseStudies/NCFAB Exec Sum.pdf>.
10 "Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will be Important to the Developing World," Martina McGloughlin, University of California at Davis, AgBioForum, 1999.
Reason Magazine blog
Ronald Bailey
August 21, 2007
Two U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization economists, Terri Raney and Prabhu Pingali write a sharp article in the September issue of Scientific American (sub required) on how genetically enhanced crops can and do help poor farmers in developing countries. I can't quote everything, but one particularly good point the FAO economists make is that scientific evidence shows that currently available biotech crops are not harming either people or the natural environment. To wit:
The chief food-safety concerns are are fears that allergens or toxins may be present and that other unintentional changes in the food composition may occur. Yet to date no verifiable toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of transgenic foods have been discovered anywhere in the world (emphasis mine). National food safety authorities of several countries have evaluated the transgenic crops currently being grown commercially and the foods derived from them, using procedures based on internationally agreed upon principles, and have judged them all safe to eat.
Environmental concerns center on the spread of transgenes to related crops or weeds ("gene flow"), the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, the development of insect pests resistant to the Bt toxin (which has long been used as a pesticide, particularly by organic farmers), harm by insect-resistant crops to nontarget organisms, and indirect environmental effects that come about because transgenic crops lead to different cropping practices.
Scientists disagree about the likelihood and potential consequences of these hazards. Gene flow, for example, is acknowledged to be possible when transgenic crops are grown close to related plants, but the transgene will persist and spread only if they give the recipient plant a competitive advantage. Such gene flow could inflict economic harm by, for instance, making a product ineligible for a status such as "organic." What would suffice to constitute ecological harm is more controversial.
Thus far, none of the major environmental hazards potentially associated with transgenic crops has developed in commercial fields. Herbicide-resistant weeds have been observed--although not necessarily caused by growing transgenic crops--and so far they can be managed by alternative herbicides. The lack of negative impacts so far does not mean they cannot occur, of course. Scientific understanding of ecological and food-safety processes is incomplete, but many of the risks highlighted for transgenics are similar to risks inherent in conventional agriculture as well.
Raney elsewhere argues that biotech crops can be pro-poor.
The economic evidence available to date does not support rhe widely held perception that transgenic crops benefit only large farms; on the contrary, the technology may be pro-poor. Nor does the available evidence support the fear that multinational biotechnology firms are capturing all of the economic value created by transgenic crops. On the contrary, the benefits are shared by consumers, technology suppliers and adopting farmers, although non-adopting farmers are penalized as their competitors achieve efficiency gains they are denied.
Her whole article on the pro-poor potential of biotech crops here.
With regard to gene flow, researchers have long recognized that the issue is not confined to genetically enhanced crops; it occurs between conventional crops and other plants as well. For more on gene flow see my column "Transgenics Gone Wild!"
For another report on the pro-poor nature of genetically enhanced crops take a look at this 2006 one by the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities.
American Chemical Society
August 21, 2007
BOSTON, Aug. 21, 2007 — Acrylamide, a synthetic chemical widely used as a water treatment agent and in the manufacture of adhesives, dyes and fabrics, has recently been shown to occur naturally in an increasing number of foods ranging from French fries to coffee. Some studies have linked high levels of acrylamide to cancer in animals and neurological damage in humans. Despite uncertainties over acrylamide’s actual health effects at the levels found in food, there is heightened public awareness about this compound. The potential health effects of acrylamide and ways to reduce its content in foods will be explored Aug. 21-23 in a special three-day symposium, “Chemistry and Toxicology of Acrylamide,” during the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society. The symposium, with more than 40 papers on the topic, will include experts from around the world who provide new insights into the compounds and particularly its biological effects.
All papers in this symposium are embargoed for Tuesday, Aug. 21, 9:00 a.m. The symposium will be held at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, Room 256. Selected papers are described below:
Dietary acrylamide may play a role in Alzheimer’s, researchers theorize — Scientists have known for years that acrylamide is capable of causing nerve damage in humans, including muscle weakness and impaired muscle coordination, particularly from industrial exposure to large levels of the chemical. Now, new laboratory studies suggest that chronic dietary exposure to the chemical is capable of damaging nerve cells in the brain and could potentially play a role in the development of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s, according to Richard LoPachin, Jr., Ph.D., a neurotoxicologist with Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He notes that acrylamide is structurally similar to acrolein, a chemical found in increased levels in brains of patients with Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. Studies in humans are warranted, the researcher says. (AGFD 079, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 9:55 a.m.)
Acrylamide not linked to breast cancer in U.S. women, Harvard study finds — Foods that contain acrylamide are unlikely to cause breast cancer, according to preliminary results of a new study involving 100,000 U.S. women followed over a 20 year period. The study is the largest epidemiological study to date exploring the possible link between acrylamide and cancer in humans. Led by Lorelei Mucci, ScD, an epidemiologist at Harvard University School of Public Health in Boston, the study found that the incidence of breast cancer among women whose acrylamide consumption was considered high was roughly equal to the incidence among those whose acrylamide consumption was low. (AGFD 082, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 11:35 a.m.) FULL NEWS RELEASE AVAILABLE.
Acrylamide found in dried fruits — Dried fruits, which are rich in fiber and antioxidants, have long been promoted as healthful alternatives to fresh fruits. Now, Thomas Amrein and his associates at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology have found acrylamide in dried fruits, a surprising finding considering that these products are dried at relatively mild temperatures instead of the high temperatures, through baking and frying, that usually produce the chemical. The study suggests that acrylamide is capable of being formed under relatively mild conditions through reactions that are not fully understood, the researchers say. Of the different dried fruits tested, the highest concentrations of the chemical were found in dried pears and prunes, they say. (AGFD 197, Wednesday, Aug. 22, 10:15 a.m.).
Fat found to be significant source of acrylamide in food — Studies have shown that carbohydrates and amino acids, particularly the non-essential amino acid asparagine, are the main chemicals in food that are responsible for acrylamide formation. Now, a new study by researchers in Spain indicates for the first time that dietary fats make a significant contribution to the formation of acrylamide. The researchers found that high fat levels in roasted almonds may account for as much as half of the acrylamide found in this food and likely accounts for high levels found in other high fat foods, according to study leader Francisco J. Hidalgo, Ph.D., of the Instituto de la Grasa in Seville. Although the researchers say they have not yet demonstrated that reducing fat content in foods actually reduces acrylamide, the study provides a new target to consider in efforts to reduce acrylamide formation. (AGFD 200, Wednesday, Aug. 22, 11:30 a.m.)
Farming techniques, biotechnology may help lower acrylamide — Researchers in England are experimenting with novel agricultural practices and biotechnology in an effort to help reduce acrylamide levels in food crops. Nigel Halford, of Rothamsted Research, in collaboration with the University of Reading, says that increasing soil sulfur levels in wheat crops and reducing nitrogen availability in crops can decrease levels of asparagine, an acrylamide precursor. The researchers have also produced a new variety of potato through genetic modification that contains lower sugar levels than conventional potatoes and are targeting plant genes responsible for controlling asparagine levels in an effort to reduce acrylamide levels in food crops. (AGFD 241, Thursday, Aug. 23, 11:10 a.m.)
###
The American Chemical Society — the world’s largest scientific society — is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
— Mark T. Sampson
Council for Biotechnology Information
August 20, 2007
An Iowa farmer explains why 75 percent of U.S. soybean acres are now planted with biotech soybeans.
As it rolls through west-central Iowa, the Raccoon River nourishes some of the most productive agricultural land on earth. The river is also a prime source of clean water for the 270,000 residents of Des Moines, Iowa's largest city. 1
Roy Bardole, who farms 1,400 acres bordering the Raccoon, makes his living from the land, but he also sees the imprint farming can leave on rivers, topsoil, animal life and water.
That's why he plants biotech soybeans, a variety designed by researchers to be able to withstand a herbicide that he only has to use once during a growing season vs. several times with conventional varieties of soybeans. Environmentally, it's the smart thing to do. Economically, it's been a proven boost to his bottom line.
Herbicide tolerant soybeans also allow Bardole to practice an ecologically friendly form of agriculture called no-till farming. Rather than plowing in the fall and harrowing before planting season, he leaves his fields virtually unto